Quantcast
Channel: CHARLES HECTOR
Viewing all 2633 articles
Browse latest View live

Jangan beri wakil rakyat wang untuk rakyat/projek kawasan - itu tugas Jabatan/Agensi Kerajaan?

$
0
0
Kerajaan Persekutuan atau negeri TIDAK harus berikan MP, Senator atau ADUN wang RM250,000 atau berjuta ringgit untuk digunakan oleh mereka untuk rakyat atau projek dalam kawasan pilihanraya beliau... Tak harus juga memberikan peruntukan, walaupun perlu melalui Pejabat Daerah dsb...(di mana cara ini pun tidak adil ...kerana jika pun ada pengagihan mengikut kawasan pilihanraya - ia tak boleh sama untuk semua kawasan - kerana bilangan penduduk berbeda..)

Kita ada Kementerian, Jabatan dan Agensi berkenaan yang bertanggungjawab untuk membantu rakyat - dalam semua aspek termasuk juga memberikan wang perlu kepada yang miskin dan yang berkelayakkan, melakukan projek pembangunan kecil yang perlu, dll...justeru mereka dan penjawat awam berkenaan yang patut membantu semua rakyat...Jika MP, Senator atau ADUN mengunakan wang sendiri atau wang parti mereka sendiri, itu lain...dan boleh diterima > tetapi mengunakan duit kerajaan tak perlu.

Ini juga menjadikan sistem sedia ada untuk bantu rakyat kurang effisyen - kerana siapa sebenar yang bertanggungjawab. Jabatan atau wakil rakyat? Mungkin juga 'bantuan' dua kali diterima...

Bila MP, ADUN dan/atau Senator memberikan wang atau membelanjakan(atau menentukan perbelanjaan) wang untuk projek pembangunan 'kecil' - rakyat akan 'confuse' memikirkan 'wakil rakyat' sangat baik - 'politik wang' semacam ini tak perlu. 

Adakah wakil rakyat PAS akan membantu dahulu ahli atau penyokong PAS - mungkin berlaku? Tambahan pula ramai yang penyokong parti pembangkang tak mahu pi jumpa 'wakil rakyat' BN, dan sebaliknya juga betul. 'You tak sokong, saya tak bantu?' mungkin juga falsafah setengah wakil rakyat atau parti.

Kerajaan mesti membantu rakyat terus melalui jabatan/agensi kerajaan secara terus - bukan melalui wakil rakyat atau parti politik.

Untuk dapat bantuan kewangan, ada pula syarat tambahan - untuk persatuan, kena panggil 'wakil rakyat' atau 'wakil parti BN' untuk hadhir sebagai tetamu ..termasuk perlu beri ruang beri ucapan. Di Temerloh, bila persatuan alumni tidak memanggil 'wakil BN' - tak ada 'derma' pada persatuan? Atau bila 'wakil rakyat atau wakil BN' kawasan tak dapat hadir walaupun dijemput, tak ada pun 'derma' (atau 'peruntukkan")? Justeru, semua terpaksa panggil (walaupun sebenarnya tak mahu) kerana 'derma'. Kebebasan rakyat dinafikan...

Najib pernah menyatakan bahawa kini 'wakil rakyat' (atau wakil BN di kawasan UMNO-BN kalah) akan diberikan lebih kurang RM5-6 juta untuk kawasan mereka... Pembangkang pun kini sama - untuk Selangor, peruntukkan RM500,000(kalau tak salah)...Sedih sekali apabila pembangkang ikut sahaja cara BN?

Kerajaan boleh berikan wang kepada wakil rakyat - untuk perkara tertentu yang kini tidak lagi diberikan (gaji/elaun pekerja wakil rakyat, pejabat,...)

Kini wakil rakyat mendapat gaji dan elaun yang lumayan - tetapi tak ada peruntukkan untuk pejabat dan 'staff' wakil rakyat - jika kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri berikan peruntukkan wang kepada wakil rakyat untuk belanja pejabat, dan gaji 'staff'. Setiap wakil rakyat perlukan satu PA(Personal Assistant), seorang kerani(untuk pastikan sentiasa ada orang di pejabat wakil rakyat), dan satu atau 2 (Research Assistant - di mana tugas mereka adalah membantu wakil rakyat - memantau isu semasa di peringkat kawasan/negeri/negara, membantu 'wakil rakyat' membuat response - mungkin kenyataan media..soalan Parlimen...ucapan Parlimen...Wakil rakyat yang sepatutnya menimbulkan isu saperti 1MDB, FGV...dan isu penting yang lain yang memerlukan perhatian rakyat dan juga kerajaan. Justeru, jika kerajaan mahu beri meraka wang lebih - ianya mesti untuk perkara ini untuk pejabat, pekerja dan tugas menjadi wakil rakyat lebih berkesan...? [Kini ramai 'wakil rakyat', kita lihat di Parlimen duduk diam sahaja - Mengapa? Mungkin mereka sebenar tidak tahu apa yang berlaku sebab tak 'prepare'...Mereka juga tak mahu adakan sessi soal jawab dengan rakyat kerana tahu (atau takut) bahawa ada kemungkinan, tak tahu macam mana mahu jawab..

Tak mahu wakil rakyat 'Santa Claus' - hanya pergi sini sana menghulurkan bantuan wang atau benda...Kita mahu wakil rakyat yang berkesan - yang mengeluarkan pendapat, mengeluarkan soalan perlu, membuat siasat mengenai 'isu-isu',...Jika jabatan atau agensi berkenaan tak buat kerja dengan betul - wakil rakyat boleh hebohkan isu supaya jabatan, agensi dan institusi kerajaan bertambah baik.

Kita mahukan 'wakil rakyat' berkualiti sepenuh masa - bukan mereka yang masih terlibat dalam perniagaan peribadi...

Baru ini keluar cerita bahawa kerajaan Selangor tiba-tiba audit seorang ADUN Selangor - sebenarnya semua wakil rakyat yang menerima peruntukkan kerajaan untuk belanja di kawasan pilihanraya perlu di audit, dan akaun mesti didedahkan secara terbuka. 

TETAPI, PENDIRIAN SAYA ADALAH PERUNTUKKAN HARUS HANYA UNTUK PEJABAT DAN PEKERJA PERLU WAKIL RAKYAT - bukan untuk diberikan untuk mereka dalam kawasan mereka, projek kecil, dsb...itu tugas Jabatan/Agensi Kerajaan yang dilakukan oleh penjawat awam tanpa pengaruh/arahan wakil rakyat mengenai siapa harus dapat, atau apa projek perlu..

 
 

PKR MP unhappy with way S'gor gov't audited his office

  Published     Updated
Kelana Jaya MP Wong Chen has expressed his unhappiness and dissatisfaction with the way an audit was carried out on his service centre by the Selangor state treasury.

The audit, which examined the spending of his Kelana Jaya office for 2014 and 2015, took place in March 2016 without his knowledge, Wong Chen complained.

"At all material times, my office was not aware of the audit. The Selangor state treasury made no attempt to inform us, visit my office, or seek clarifications from my staff.

"The audit was done mysteriously and without due process and natural justice," he said in a lengthy Facebook posting today, adding that he received the audit report on Feb 2, 2017.

As his annual RM250,000 budget for his constituents goes through an administrative process involving the Petaling district and land office, he thought the state treasury must have visited those offices instead.

However, he said, when he met later with the Petaling district and land office district officer and finance officer, they did not have any recollection of any such audit visit to their office.

"Despite the continuing mystery of how the audit actually took place on March 1 to 3, 2016, my main quarrel with the Selangor state treasury is essentially over its audit findings," he said.

Though there are no allegations of corrupt practices in the audit findings, Wong Chen said he felt his office had been denied the right to be heard regarding audit findings of not complying with Selangor guidelines.

"In fact, we strongly object to all the audit findings, which in our opinion, some are completely baseless and some can be clarified easily by asking my staff and requesting for documents," he said.

Among the six audit findings that Wong Chen took issue with, one of it was that he had focused most of his financial help on the poor in the Desa Mentari area.

This finding can be easily explained, he said, as his poorest constituents in Kelana Jaya are from the Desa Mentari area.

"I mean, why would I provide welfare aid to people staying in the middle-class suburbs of Subang Jaya?

"There is absolutely no Selangor government guideline that states that we cannot focus our welfare aid to a geographical zone," he said.

Put stop to malicious rumours

Another audit finding appeared to take issue that Wong Chen's office gave financial aid to the same 68 poor individuals in both 2014 and 2015.

"This finding can be easily explained by the fact that all 68 individuals were poor and desperate in 2014 and they remained poor and desperate in 2015," Wong Chen said.

He also refuted the four other audit findings in his Facebook posting.

His office had also issued a full reply refuting all the Selangor state treasury audit findings on the same day they received the audit report, as well as delivering about 4,000 pages of documents related to their 2014 and 2015 accounts.

Since then, there appears to be no response from the Selangor state treasury to attempts by Wong Chen's office to contact them.

He said he had written four letters to the authorities on this matter, without a single reply.

He had also issued a notice to the Selangor state treasury, asking them to reply to him within 14 days and to either absolve his office of their earlier audit findings or conduct another audit, this time in the presence of his staff.
 
The deadline passed yesterday without any reply, which is why he has decided to disclose this incident, he said.
"The political intention of this disclosure is also to put a stop to the malicious rumours that are damaging the good reputation of my staff and my office," he said.

Depending on the next course of action by the Selangor state treasury, Wong Chen also said his office reserves the right to pursue this matter against the state treasury by all legal means available.

Malaysiakini has attempted to contact the Selangor State Treasury but was unsuccessful.
 

ADUN PKR tak puas hati cara k'jaan S'ngor audit pejabatnya

   
Anggota Parlimen Kelana Jaya Wong Chen meluahkan rasa tidak puas hati terhadap cara audit yang dijalankan ke atas pusat khidmatnya oleh Perbendaharaan Negeri Selangor.

Menurut Wong Cheng, audit yang dijalankan pada Mac 2016 ke atas perbelanjaan di pejabat beliau di Kelana Jaya pada 2014 dan 2015, dibuat tanpa pengetahuannya.

"Perbendaharaan Negeri Selangor tidak cuba beritahu kami, melawat pejabat atau mendapatkan penjelasan daripada kakitangan saya.

"Audit itu dilakukan secara misteri dan tanpa melalui proses yang adil dan sewajarnya," katanya dalam laman Facebook yang panjang hari ini, sambil menambah beliau menerima laporan audit itu pada 2 Februari 2017.

Disebabkan perbelanjaan tahunan sebanyak RM250,000 untuk pengundi di kawasannya perlu melalui proses melibatkan Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Petaling, beliau berpendapat perbendaharaan negeri sepatutnya turut melawat pejabat berkenaan.

Bagaimanapun, Wong berkata, apabila beliau bertemu Pegawai Daerah dan pegawai kewangan di Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Petaling, mereka tidak ingat sebarang lawatan audit dibuat.

"Walaupun terus jadi misteri bagaimana audit dilakukan pada 1 Mac hingga 3 Mac 2016, ketidakpuasan saya dengan perbendaharaan negeri Selangor pada dasarnya lebih kepada penemuan audit itu," kata beliau.

Walaupun tiada dakwaan amalan rasuah dalam penemuan audit berkenaan, Wong Chen berkata, beliau berasa pejabatnya dinafikan hak untuk mengetahui penemuan audit yang tidak mematuhi garis panduan Selangor.

"Malah, kami membantah semua penemuan audit yang pada pendapat kami, ada yang tidak berasas dan ada yang boleh dijelaskan dengan mudah dengan bertanya kakitangan saya dan meminta dokumen," katanya.

Antara enam penemuan audit yang menimbulkan tidak puas hati kepadanya, salah satunya adalah tumpuan sebahagian besar bantuan kewangan yang diberi kepada penduduk miskin di kawasan Desa Mentari.

Katanya, dapatan itu dengan mudah boleh dijelaskan kerana ramai pengundi miskin di Kelana Jaya adalah dari kawasan Desa Mentari.

"Kenapa saya perlu beri bantuan kebajikan kepada orang yang tinggal di pinggir bandar kelas pertengahan di Subang Jaya? Sama sekali tidak ada garis panduan oleh kerajaan Selangor yang menyatakan kami tidak boleh beri bantuan kebajikan berdasarkan zon geografi," katanya.

Satu lagi penemuan audit berkenaan adalah pejabat Wong Chen telah memberi bantuan kewangan kepada 68 individu miskin yang sama pada tahun 2014 dan 2015.

"Penemuan ini mudah dijelaskan oleh fakta bahawa semua 68 individu miskin dan terdesak pada tahun 2014 itu kekal miskin dan terdesak pada 2015," kata Wong Chen.

Malaysiakini telah cuba menghubungi Perbendaharaan Negeri Selangor tetapi tidak berjaya. - Malaysiakini, 23/5/2017
 

US4.5billion allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB? Apa jawapan Najib dan kerajaan UMNO-BN?

$
0
0
Embarrassing - how some Malaysians are responding to the US Department of Justice recent suit. Hishamuddin talks about asking the US to charge the guilty - so that they can prove their innocence? Another person is raising concerns about the 'complainants' - 'heinous agenda' against the PM. Hello, people can make 'police reports' and  complaints - but then the relevant enforcement authority investigates, and only when they find sufficient credible evidence, they act and file legal suits... Now, please do not try to stop people for reporting possible crimes - they have no obligation to find evidence - they simply bring to the attention of the authorities...to their suspicion - if we demand people to also adduce proof of their allegations...then many will just stop making police reports, etc..In any even, everyone has a right to expression and opinion...

'Hidden agenda' against the Prime Minister - Nope, the agenda, if any in my opinion, is to save Malaysia and Malaysians - its our money out there (maybe even more than 4.5 billion). Is the US stupid? Are all the other nations that have taken actions in connection with 1MDB wrong? Sadly, it is some who just wish that their 'leader' cannot never do wrong - they maybe  blinded by the 'absolute loyalty'? Is it the Opposition behind this - well, sad to say, I do not believe many of these parties do have the capacity to do such an investigation and make complaints...Is it Sarawak Report? Is it WSJ? Investigations have been done. Either way, it is best to wait for the end of these DOJ cases before a final conclusion is made.  

 

1MDB, Kelptocracy dan perkara berkaitan - Tak ada apa-apa tindakan guaman di Malaysia tetapi nampaknya ada banyak tindakan guaman berlaku di lain-lain negara terutama di Amerika Syarikat di mana kini kita telah menerima berita bahawa tindakan guaman telah dimulakan di Mahkamah of Jabatan Keadilan Amerika(Department of Justice - DOJ). 

'...the total identified stolen proceeds to $4.5 billion.This money financed the lavish lifestyles of the alleged co-conspirators at the expense and detriment of the Malaysian people...' - Kenyataan DOJ US, 15/6/2017(lihat dibawah)

Ini bukan lagi dakwaan atau siasatan lagi - tindakan guaman telah difailkan oleh kerajaan Amerika Syarikat - bukan orang perseorangan atau syarikat peribadi. 

1MDB adalah syarikat milik penuh rakyat Malaysia (kerajaan Malaysia) - di mana PM Najib bukan sahaja Penasihat, tetapi juga menteri bertanggungjawab iaitu Menteri Kewangan, serta juga Perdana Menteri Malaysia...

Secara am dan ringkas, tindakan guaman di Amerika mengatakan wang 1MDB, iaitu wang rakyat/kerajaan Malaysia, telah digasak secara salah salah atau bercanggah undang-undang ... di mana tindakan ini juga bertujuan mendapatkan kembali wang rakyat/kerajaan yang telah dilupuskan. Mula-mula satu tindakan guaman, kini sudah 3. Amerika Syarikat boleh merampas duit dan harta hanya dalam bidangkuasa mereka...

APA TINDAKAN MALAYSIA? JIKA BENAR...

- Ini merupakan tindakan yang terus melibatkan Malaysia - kerajaan Malaysia - Perdana Menteri dan Menteri Kewangan - 1MDB?

- Jika ada asas berlaku dakwaan 'kleptocracy' atau pencurian wang apa cara pun - MALAYSIA akan terus terlibat dengan Amerika untuk dapatkan balik wang, dan mungkin juga menangkap dan mendakwa mereka yang melakukan kesalahan...Malaysia juga mesti hadhir memerhati penjalanan kes -'watching brief' - peguambela pihak yang ada kepentingan, memerhati perjalanan kes. Malaysia harus segera dapat kepastian bahawa wang/harta yang dirampas akan seterusnya dikembalikan... Mungkin juga segera dapat perintah Mahkamah untuk membekukan wang/akaun/harta mereka yang disyaki - untuk memastikan semua kekal dalam bidangkuasa Malaysia...

APA TINDAKAN MALAYSIA? JIKA PALSU..

- Ini bukan isu syarikat kepunyaan beberapa orang rakyat Malaysia atau isu seorang rakyat Malaysia - Ini adalah isu Malaysia - kerajaan Malaysia - PM dan Menteri Kewangan Malaysia, Bank Negara, ROC - ini soal Malaysia - TERUS menghantar 'protest note' kepada Amerika Syarikat...yang disusuli dengan tindakan diplomatik sewajar - usir keluar diplomat Amerika, tutup kedutaan Malaysia di Amerika ...Tindakan DOJ adalah tindakan 'kerajaan US' bukan tindakan mana-mana individu/syarikat biasa..

- Terus serahkan aduan kepada UN atau badan lain (lihat apa yang dilakukan Malaysia dalam isu 'North Korea'...lihat juga apa yang dilakukan Arab Saudi terhadap Quatar?)

- Apakah yang akan dilakukan Amerika Syarikat jika Malaysia memulakan tindakan guaman terhadap syarikat milik penuh US - sama sapertimana yang dilakukan US terhadap Malaysia? Tetapi tindakan kerajaan UMNO-BN nampaknya hanya penafian, dan penghalangan aliran maklumat kepada rakyat Malaysia - dan kini juga ugutan terhadap rakyat supaya jangan bincang secara jujur dan terbuka...ugutan akan dikenakan tindakan undang-undang ...Apa yang kita mahu adalah SIFAT TERBUKA, JUJUR DAN AMANAH - jika ada silap dibuat, akui kesilapan dan seterusnya buat apa yang perlu untuk membetulkan keadaan demi semua rakyat Malaysia...???

APA YANG MALAYSIA BUAT?

- 'TUTUP PENYIASATAN' - itu yang dilakukan oleh Pendakwa Raya dalam kes-kes yang ramai fikirkan ada kaitan dengan 1MDB? Dalam apa-apa kes jenayah, pendakwa raya mungkin akan kata tak cukup bukti/keterangan untuk ambil tindakan Mahkamah ...tetapi fail akan kekal BUKA - bila penyiasatan membekalkan bukti cukup...tindakan diambil...

- 1MDB pun dikatakan keluar menyatakan yang tak ada apa yang salah berlaku, dan semua OK - tak ada 'wang hilang' atau 'lupus' secara salah...

- PM dan Menteri kata ini semua 'kerja pembangkang'...

 Ayuh kita lihat beberapa 'response' yang dilapurkan media dan membincangkannya...

Hishamuddin Hussein - Secara ringkas, beliau menyatakan bahawa DOJ harus menuduh orang perseorangan/entiti supaya mereka yang dituduh ada peluang membersihkan nama mereka. Jangan buat kenyataan tanpa mengambil tindakan...

1 - Pihak Amerika bukan sahaja buat kenyataan - tindakan sudah diambil. Mereka sudah failkan 3 tindakan Mahkamah untuk cuba mendapatkan kembali lebih kurang USD4.5billion? Tindakan mahkamah ketiga dimulakan pada lebih kurang 15 June??

DEFENCE Minister Hishamuddin Hussein urged the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to press charges if they have concrete proof of alleged misapproriation of funds from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). "They should not make multiple statements without taking any actions...."When they do press charges, those who are charged would have the opportunity to clear their names," he said the  at a briefing session of the party's handbook on 14th general election at Putra World Trade Centre (PWTC)

On June 15 , the DoJ filed a civil action to seize assets worth US$540 million (RM2.3 billion), believed to have been purchased using money siphoned from state investment fund 1MDB. This brings the total amount of allegedly misappropriated funds from 1MDB to US$4.5 billion.

2. Betul, belum lagi ada apa-apa kes jenayah difailkan terhadap mana-mana individu atau syarikat - TETAPI dokumen yang difailkan di dalam tindakan sivil cukup banyak ada dakwaan mengenai individu dan/atau syarikat - semua pihak berkenaan boleh sekarang mencabar dakwaan yang telah dibuat ... Hishamuddin, mereka yang dituduh ...sudahpun ada peluang membuktikan tak ada salah yang berlaku...Saya percaya mereka yang dikatakan terlibat boleh memohon mencelah dalam kes ini, dan kemukakan bukti menyangkal dakwaan DOJ...?

3. Mungkin, Hishamuddin bercakap mengenai Najib Tun Razak - Itu sukar kerana dia Perdana Menteri Malaysia...dan ada 'immunity diplomatik'  yang menghalang US dan/atau pihak pendakwaan US mengambil tindakan guaman/jenayah terhadap Najib sekarang... Mungkin selepas PRU akan datang, dan Najib kalah dan tidak lagi jadi PM...keadaan akan berubah...jika Najib pi Amerika Syarikat, tanpa imuniti diplomatik, mungkin juga akan kena tangkap (tapi kita tak tahu lagi)??? Jika pun ada permintaan US pada masa ini untukl Malaysia untuk menangkap dan hantar Najib (atau mana Menteri) ke US untuk didakwa,  kerajaan Malaysia tidak akan bersetuju?

4. Kedua, biasanya kena tangkap dulu mereka yang disyaki...untuk berbuat demikian, perlu individu itu berada dalam bidangkuasa Amerika... Ada yang kata, kalau US boleh ceroboh negara lain dan tangkap-bunuh Osama, kenapa tak boleh buat sama? Untuk kes jenayah, secara tambahan memerlukan beban bukti yang sangat tinggi...dan ini bukan merupakan dalam kes macam ini ...melihat berapa individu dan syarikat lain terlibat bukan sahaja di Amerika Syarikat tetapi di seluruh dunia.  Lihat kes dadah, yang ditangkap hanya 'mule' atau orang kecil - dapatkah Malaysia sehingga kini tangkap dan dakwa  mana-mana 'Big Bos' drug trafficking? Kes pembunuhan Altantuya pun ramai fikir ada 'Big Boss' yang telah memberikan arahan - tapi sehingga sekarang tak ada yang ditangkap atau dituduh? Kes 'kleptocracy' dan 'money laundering' lebih susah...



Abdul Rahman Dahlan - pula meminta DOJ dedahkan nama pengadu ...jadi MACC dan polis juga harus dedahkan nama semua yang mengadu atau beri maklumat ....Karut dia cakap...'Witness Protection", dsb.. - kalau dia sendiri ada bukti bahawa yang mengadu itu dalah parti PAS/DAP/PKR/BERSATU/PRM - katakan atau buktikan sahaja. Jangan hanya insinuasi sahaja...atau cadangan saja...Semua boleh buat report atau beri maklumat - yang akan mengerakkan pihak berkuatkuasa menjalankan siasatan pastikan sama ada salah laku atau tidak....DOJ Amerika sudah fail 3 tindakan di Mahkamah - di mana dokumen yang difailkan adalah terbuka .... {Jika apa yang didakwa US adalah benar, adakah Menteri ini mencadangkan kita yang ada pengetahuan salahlaku harus hanya berdiam diri....}

“My suspicion is that these complainants are actually Malaysians with heinous political agenda against the Prime Minister and the government...Malaysians deserve to know who these complainants are and the DoJ should reveal their identities,”
****
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, June 15, 2017

U.S. Seeks to Recover Approximately $540 Million Obtained From Corruption Involving Malaysian Sovereign Wealth Fund

The Justice Department announced today the filing of civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture and recovery of approximately $540 million in assets associated with an international conspiracy to launder funds misappropriated from a Malaysian sovereign wealth fund.Combined with civil forfeiture complaints filed in July 2016, seeking more than $1 billion, and civil forfeiture complaints filed last week seeking approximately $100 million in assets, this case represents the largest action brought under the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative. Assets now subject to forfeiture in this case total almost $1.7 billion.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco, Acting U.S. Attorney Sandra R. Brown of the Central District of California, Assistant Director Stephen E. Richardson of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division, and Deputy Chief Don Fort of the IRS-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) made the announcement.

According to the complaints, from 2009 through 2015, more than $4.5 billion in funds belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) was allegedly misappropriated by high-level officials of 1MDB and their associates. 1MDB was created by the government of Malaysia to promote economic development in Malaysia through global partnerships and foreign direct investment, and its funds were intended to be used for improving the well-being of the Malaysian people. 

“The Criminal Division is steadfast in our efforts to protect the security, safety, and integrity of the American financial system from all manner of abuse, including by kleptocrats seeking to hide their ill-gotten or stolen wealth,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Blanco. “Today’s complaints reveal another chapter of this multi-year, multi-billion-dollar fraud scheme, bringing the total identified stolen proceeds to $4.5 billion.This money financed the lavish lifestyles of the alleged co-conspirators at the expense and detriment of the Malaysian people. We are unwavering in our commitment to ensure the United States is not a safe haven for corrupt individuals and kleptocrats to hide their ill-gotten wealth or money, and that recovered assets be returned to the victims from which they were taken.”

“These cases involve billions of dollars that should have been used to help the people of Malaysia, but instead was used by a small number of individuals to fuel their astonishing greed,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Brown. “The misappropriation of 1MDB funds was accomplished with an extravagant web of lies and bogus transactions that were brought to light by the dedicated attorneys and law enforcement agents who continue to work on this matter. We simply will not allow the United States to be a place where corrupt individuals can expect to hide assets and lavishly spend money that should be used for the benefit of citizens of other nations.”

“Today’s filing serves as a reminder of the important role that the FBI plays in rooting out international corruption. When corrupt foreign officials launder funds through the United States in furtherance of their criminal activity, the FBI works tirelessly to help hold those officials accountable, and recover the misappropriated funds,” said Assistant Director Richardson. “I applaud all my colleagues and our international partners who have worked to help recover an immense amount of funds taken from the Malaysian people, who are the victims of this abhorrent case of kleptocracy.”

“Today’s announcement is the result of untangling a global labyrinth of multi-layered financial transactions allegedly used to divert billions of dollars from the people of Malaysia and fund the co-conspirators’ lavish lifestyles,” said Deputy Chief Fort.“The IRS is proud to partner with other law enforcement agencies and share its world-renowned financial investigative expertise in this complex financial investigation. It’s important for the world to see, that when people use the American financial system for corruption, the IRS will take notice.”

As alleged in the complaints, the members of the conspiracy – which included officials at 1MDB, their relatives and other associates – diverted more than $4.5 billion in 1MDB funds.  Using fraudulent documents and representations, the co-conspirators allegedly laundered the funds through a series of complex transactions and shell companies with bank accounts located in the U.S. and abroad. These transactions allegedly served to conceal the origin, source and ownership of the funds, and ultimately passed through U.S. financial institutions to then be used to acquire and invest in assets located in the U.S. and overseas.

The complaints filed today allege that in 2014, the co-conspirators misappropriated approximately $850 million in 1MDB funds under the guise of repurchasing certain options that had been given in connection with a guarantee of 2012 bonds. As the complaints allege, 1MDB had borrowed a total of $1.225 billion from a syndicate of banks to fund the buy-back of the options. The complaints allege that approximately $850 million was instead diverted to several offshore shell entities. From there, the complaints allege, the funds stolen in 2014, in addition to money stolen in prior years, were used, among other things, to purchase a 300 foot luxury yacht valued at over $260 million, certain movie rights, high-end properties, tens of millions of dollars of jewelry, and artwork. A portion of the diverted loan proceeds were also allegedly used in an elaborate, Ponzi-like scheme to create the false appearance that an earlier 1MDB investment had been profitable. 

As alleged in the earlier complaints, in 2009, 1MDB officials and their associates embezzled approximately $1 billion that was supposed to be invested to exploit energy concessions purportedly owned by a foreign partner. Instead, the funds were transferred through shell companies and were used to acquire a number of assets, as set forth in the complaints. The complaints also allege that the co-conspirators misappropriated close to $1.4 billion in funds raised through the bond offerings in 2012, and more than $1.2 billion following another bond offering in 2013.

The FBI’s International Corruption Squads in New York City and Los Angeles, and the IRS-CI are investigating the case. Deputy Chief Woo S. Lee and Trial Attorneys Kyle R. Freeny and Jonathan Baum of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys John Kucera and Christen Sproule of the Central District of California are prosecuting the case. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs is providing substantial assistance.

The Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative is led by a team of dedicated prosecutors in the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, in partnership with federal law enforcement agencies, and often with U.S. Attorney’s Offices, to forfeit the proceeds of foreign official corruption and, where appropriate, to use those recovered asset to benefit the people harmed by these acts of corruption and abuse of office. In 2015, the FBI formed International Corruption Squads across the country to address national and international implications of foreign corruption. Individuals with information about possible proceeds of foreign corruption located in or laundered through the U.S. should contact federal law enforcement or send an email to kleptocracy@usdoj.gov (link sends e-mail) (link sends e-mail) or https://tips.fbi.gov/.

A civil forfeiture complaint is merely an allegation that money or property was involved in or represents the proceeds of a crime. These allegations are not proven until a court awards judgment in favor of the U.S. - The United States Department of Justice Website, 15/7/2017



DOJ suit: Ministers must stop treating M'sians as brainless

   R Nadeswaran     Published     Updated
COMMENT | Over the past six days, so much has been said and so much has been written, and reported, on the latest filing by the Department of Justice (DoJ) of the United States. Opinions on the 1Malaysia

Development Bhd (1MDB) – some unsolicited and others prompted – have clouded the space and airtime in both the print and electronic media.

So many people have said so many things – some bird-brained theories, some wayward questions and many incomprehensible statements. But above all, Malaysians can take consolation that they were a handful of intelligent analysis and positive examination of the issues.

However, the statements of two ministers leave the intrepid reader, listener, and viewer wondering: “what is going on?” At least two newspapers reported their response without telling readers what they were talking about.

It was akin to telling people “don’t listen to the lies perpetrated by Nadeswaran” without telling them what were the lies I had concocted or spread. But reading all sides of the story, there is this inherent duty as a journalist to explain why certain things are done in certain ways without resorting to lies as avowed by certain parties.

Let’s examine their assertions: Communications and Multimedia minister Salleh Said Keruak argued that the pronouncement by the DoJ is a form of interference, as their claim is not confirmed to the subject matter: which is about an alleged crime committed on US soil.

The minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Abdul Rahman Dahlan demanded to know the names of the complainants which led to the DoJ’s investigations.

To put the matter in the right context, let us look at each of these assertions.

“A large part of the DOJ statement talks about what is happening internally in Malaysia, and an even larger part has no relevance to the subject of whether a crime has been committed on US soil as alleged,” Salleh said in a statement.

But what he does not understand is that the filings are part of its civil forfeiture action to seize assets it claims were bought using funds siphoned from 1MDB. No one is accusing the recipients of any wrongdoing although they may or may not have known the source of funds.

The more pertinent point is that foreign banks, in this case, US financial institutions, were used to launder the money stolen from 1MDB. But Salleh must agree that what is good for the goose must also be good for the gander.

When Singapore carried out discreet investigations over two years and acted against individuals and investigations into the laundering of money from 1MDB accounts, there was hardly a whimper. Some of the money was traced to 1MDB and other companies in which Malaysians were in control.

What was at stake was not where the money came from. It could have come from Timbuktu or from personal coffers of Mugabe or 1MDB. Did anyone ask the Monetary Authority of Singapore to identify the complainants?

It acted on its own volition and what mattered most was the island republic’s reputation as an international financial hub. It acted to penalise those who had acted to use its systems and instruments to launder money.

At the end of it all, it slapped S$29.1 (about RM100 million) in penalties on eight wayward banks and convicted five bankers. Three of the five have been banned for life or a minimum of 15 years from Singapore’s securities while another was banned for 10 years. Three more face bans from three to six years.
Singapore authorities, according to the Straits Times, stressed the scale of the probe had been unprecedented, spanning hundreds of thousands of transactions involving many shell firms and people operating in the US, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, and Malaysia.

Every sovereign nation has a right to defend itself and its institutions from being used for illegal activities, especially money laundering. The US and jurisdictions in other countries are just doing that or have done that.

To simplify the issue, let’s use this analogy. Mr A steals money from a Bank B in Malaysia and transfers it to Mr C’s account in London. He then orders expensive diamonds for Miss D, an Australian, from jeweller E in London. He then orders and obtains the jewellery and gets Mr C to pay E.

The principal offender may be Mr A but the person who receives and launders the money is Mr C. But in order to prove that the source of the money was in the first place indeed “dirty money”, most authorities take pains to establish a predicate offence.

A predicate offence is a crime that is a component of a more serious criminal offence. Generally, the term “predicate offence” is used in reference to underlying money laundering and/or terrorist finance activity. And this practice is not new as Malaysian authorities wanted to use this prevent the DoJ from further investigations.

On April 20, the Straits Times reported that Malaysia and Abu Dhabi had reached a settlement on a dispute involving billions of dollars in debt obligations of 1MDB that is at the centre of an international money-laundering probe.

“The disputed monies in the Malaysia-Abu Dhabi row are central to legal suits brought by the US Department of Justice over the alleged misappropriation of funds from 1MDB. The Department of Justice claims that the funds siphoned from 1MDB went to fund purchases of real estate and other assets by associates of PM Najib. The settlement agreement between Malaysia and Abu Dhabi would achieve what is known in legal parlance as ‘no predicate offence’”, the newspaper quoted financial executives as saying. (its reports were widely reproduced in the Malaysian media)

So, if Malaysia could move to establish there was no predicate offence, shouldn’t others be offered a bite of the same cherry which would prove predicate offences had been committed?

With such stringent requirements, the DoJ has to establish that the money was indeed stolen and subsequently laundered by purchasing the yacht, jewellery, art pieces etc. The authorities want to establish a water-tight case in what has been described as the largest money laundering exercise in history.

And another timely reminder: When you set foot on foreign soil or use their institutions, you play by their rules. You can’t use friendship or connections to escape. The late Eric Chia of Perwaja fame found to his chagrin that rules of a foreign land – however tough or unacceptable – have to be followed to the letter.

In the case of Abdul Rahman, he claimed once names of the DoJ complainants are revealed, Malaysians would be able to see that they are linked with the agenda of Malaysia's opposition parties. Wouldn’t it be also germane to ask not only Singapore but our own enforcement agencies the same question? All collect and collate data when banks or financial institutions flag bank accounts and report what appear to be nefarious activities.

Bank Negara, on its website, has a list of companies and individuals who have been convicted for money laundering. A Google search will show there have been scores of other prosecutions for similar offences which were investigated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the police and other enforcement agencies. These agencies, in many cases, had acted without a complaint based on information they had gathered in the course of investigations.

If we have Malaysians of such stature who passed invoices, sales receipts, bank statements and other documents from jeweller Lorraine Schwartz to the DoJ, we journalists would love to have him or her as our “deep throat”. It preposterous to suggest that someone from home (the opposition is always the bogeyman) provided such succinct details and documentation or even filed a complaint.

The time has come for ministers to stop treating Malaysians as people of little intelligence. Time has also come for newspapers, its owners and editors to stop the dissemination of half-truths and misinformation. The declining readership of newspapers is sufficient to suggest the mistrust and the lack of confidence in the content. To all, as had been said before, we must make every effort to eradicate this disease called the Truth Deficiency Syndrome. If not, this country will be engulfed by it.


R NADESWARAN is an award-winning veteran journalist who writes on bread and butter issues with one agenda - a better quality of life for all Malaysians irrespective of colour, creed or religion. He can be reached at: citizen.nades22@gmail.com. - Malaysiakini, 19/6/2017

DoJ should press charges if they have proof, says Hishammuddin


Asila Jalil

DoJ should press charges if they have proof, says Hishammuddin
Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein says the US DoJ should press charges instead of making allegations if they have concrete proof of wrongdoing. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Seth Akmal, June 18, 2017.

DEFENCE Minister Hishamuddin Hussein urged the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to press charges if they have concrete proof of alleged misapproriation of funds from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
"They should not make multiple statements without taking any actions.

"When they do press charges, those who are charged would have the opportunity to clear their names," he said the  at a briefing session of the party's handbook on 14th general election at Putra World Trade Centre (PWTC)

He also said statements made without any further actions would only jeopardize DoJ's credibility.

On June 15 , the DoJ filed a civil action to seize assets worth US$540 million (RM2.3 billion), believed to have been purchased using money siphoned from state investment fund 1MDB.

This brings the total amount of allegedly misappropriated funds from 1MDB to US$4.5 billion.

The DoJ is seeking to seize, among others, Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low’s, luxury yacht called Equanimity which is worth US$165 million and rights to the film "Dumb and Dumber To" produced by Red Granite, a production house co-owned by Riza Aziz, Najib’s stepson.

The DoJ suit also noted that Low had purchased, using money from 1MDB, a 22-carat pink diamond necklace worth US$27.3 million for the “wife of Malaysian Official No. 1” (MO1).

MO1 was previously identified as the prime minister by a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department

"Those are merely allegations. They need to charge because right now it is just a speculation," he added.

Yesterday, Rosmah Mansor threatened to sue those who produce "false, malicious publications or postings" against her, but legal experts say it is likely an empty threat. – June 18, 2017. - Malaysian Insight, 18/6/2017
 

Minister suspects DoJ’s 1MDB complainants have ‘heinous agenda’ against PM


Sunday June 18, 2017
03:08 PM GMT+8
Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Dahlan said the DoJ had every right to file a suit but it was important to base the case on facts and not on rhetoric or ill-intentioned statements. — Picture by Saw Siow FengDatuk Seri Abdul Rahman Dahlan said the DoJ had every right to file a suit but it was important to base the case on facts and not on rhetoric or ill-intentioned statements. — Picture by Saw Siow Feng KUALA LUMPUR, June 18 — The US Department of Justice (DoJ) must name the complainants in its investigations into the troubled 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Dahlan said today.

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department said this was necessary so the public could tell how deeply involved the complainants were within the Opposition parties in their alleged agenda to overthrow Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

“My suspicion is that these complainants are actually Malaysians with heinous political agenda against the Prime Minister and the government.

“Malaysians deserve to know who these complainants are and the DoJ should reveal their identities,” he said in a statement.

Commenting on the civil lawsuit, Abdul Rahman said the DoJ had every right to file a suit but it was important to base the case on facts and not on rhetoric or ill-intentioned statements.

“1MDB is not a party to the DoJ civil lawsuit. In fact, the assets that the DoJ alleges were wrongfully procured and seeks to seize, were in fact purchased by entities that are not legally owned nor controlled by 1MDB,” he said.

On Thursday, the DoJ announced its latest civil filing that sought to seize US$540 million (RM2.31 billion) in assets obtained by funds allegedly stolen from 1MDB. The latest civil forfeiture complaints from the lawsuit launched last July alleged that more than US$4.5 billion had been misappropriated from the Malaysian state investment firm from 2009 through 2015.

1MDB has since responded saying that the allegations were not backed with proof.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) subsequently said that it will leave the matter with the police to handle.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali had said that no wrongdoing or misappropriation was found in 1MDB after the Malaysian firm was probed by various agencies, such as the MACC, the Auditor-General and the bi-partisan Public Accounts Committee.- Malay Mail, 18/6/2017

Polis Rampas CCTV - lepas itu pakai sendiri di Balai? Bukankah salah?

$
0
0
Polis buat serbuan...ambil(rampas) barangan termasuk daripada 'gambling den' - lepas itu pasang dan pakai sendiri CCTV di Balai Polis - Saya percaya ini salah? Inilah apa yang dilapurkan dalam media baru-baru ini...(Mungkin kesilapan lapuran?) 

"The previous OCS installed a CCTV system as a measure to scare the officers as there were a few who were stealing things. He installed it with his own initiative and even took a few CCTV cameras from the gambling dens they raided here," said Harun[Asst Supt Harun Abu Bakar], who took over as station chief in January.
Bila polis menyerbu dan ambil barangan daripada tempat yang disyaki telah berlaku jenayah, atau daripada individu yang disyaki melakukan jenayah, ianya adalah untuk tujuan penyiasatan sahaja - tak boleh ambil barang orang, selepas itu pakai sendiri atau jual pada orang lain...atau simpan terus...


Barang yang rampas itu mesti disimpan dalam tempat khas, di mana semua bukti/keterangan disimpan.

Jika selepas penyiasatan, tidak ada tindakan pendakwaan di Mahkamah, harus dikembalikan semua barangan kepada tuan punya - mungkin bukan barang-barang haram saperti dadah merbahaya, senjata, benda yang dicuri...Tetapi semua barangan lain, yang tak akan digunakan sebagai bukti di bicara harus dikembalikan kepada tuan punya...

Kenapa simpan CCTV - ini juga pelik. Jika simpan 'recording' CCTV, boleh dikatakan munasabah...tetapi 'kamera CCTV'...Ada CCTV di tempat perniagaan atau rumah sendiri bulan salah kecuali CCTV itu bahan curi? barang yang diseludup?

Adakah tuan punya 'gambling den' ini didakwa? Adakah kes itu selesai? Kalau tak selesai, dan kes masih disiasat...mungkin ada sebab untuk polis simpan barangan yang diambil dari tempat yang disyaki berlaku jenayah...?

Akhir bicara, Mahkamah akan memutuskan apa yang harus dilakukan dengan barangan yang dirampas dan dikemukakan sebagai bukti...

Jadi, kenapa CCTV ini tidak dikembalikan? 

Apa yang dikatakan saksi, Asst Supt Harun Abu Bakar, sangat serius - dia dilapurkan menyatakan bahawa OCS(Officer in Charge of Police Station) sebelum ini yang gunakan CCTV yang dirampas untuk Balai Bandar Baru Klang...Sekarang ada tindakan jenayah akan diambil terhadap polis ini?

Apa kata IGP? Apa kata Pendakwa Raya? - Adakah apa yang telah dilakukan ini OK? Bolehkah polis buat sesuka hati barangan yang dirampas semasa serbuan polis?

Lapuran berita ini mengenai satu kes 'mati dalam tahanan polis' - di mana sedih sekali sehingga kini tak ada CCTV yang mempunyai kebolehan rekod...di semua balai polis di Malaysia. Apa macam kerajaan UMNO-BN - bukankah ini satu perkara yang amat diberlukan untuk memastikan salah laku dibalai polis berkurangan...

Sebenarnya, mungkin masa sudah tiba untuk semua polis diberikan CCTV peribadi semasa bertugas...ini akan mengurangkan rasuah dan salahlaku lain dikalangan polis di Malaysia..

Pos berkaitang mengenai penyiasatan EAIC mengenai kematian dalam tahanan, sila lihat

CCTVs with no recording, and no police officers monitoring CCTVS - Death in Custody?



uesday, 6 June 2017 | MYT 4:43 PM

CCTV cameras were dummies, police station chief tells EAIC hearing

PETALING JAYA: The CCTV cameras installed at the Bandar Baru Klang police station were dummies intended to deter thieving officers serving in the station, said Asst Supt Harun Abu Bakar.

The officer in charge of the police station (OCS) said this during the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) hearing to investigate the death of  44-year-old S. Balamurugan who died in custody in the station lock-up.

He was responding to questions from hearing chairman Datuk Yaacob Md Sam, who had asked what was the purpose of having CCTV cameras in the station when they could only display but not record footage.

Harun explained that the four cameras installed around the station were intended to "warn officers that they were being watched".

"The previous OCS installed a CCTV system as a measure to scare the officers as there were a few who were stealing things. He installed it with his own initiative and even took a few CCTV cameras from the gambling dens they raided here," said Harun, who took over as station chief in January.

He added that the system was effective as only a few officers knew that the cameras in the station could not record footage.

Asked on whether the room which displayed the footage was monitored, Harun said he did not have sufficient manpower in his station and felt that they had more pressing matters to attend to.

"I feel the CCTV system is important and needs to be monitored but we don't have enough people," he said.

Balamurugan died in custody on Feb 8 after he was arrested with two other men and brought to the Bandar Baru Klang station for questioning.

Fellow detainees Ang Kian Kok and K. Tamilarasan had both said they along with Balamurugan were beaten up by an officer named Moganes at the station and their  description of the beatings tallied with post-mortem findings on Balamurugan's body.

The lack of a functioning CCTV camera system in the station has made it difficult for the investigations to take place. - Star, 6/6/2017

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/06/06/cctv-cameras-were-dummies-police-station-chief-tells-eaic-hearing/#YekmrYyrFeRdgQsH.99

Media tentukan siapa parti/pemimpin penting? Bukan peranan media? Tak adil untuk rakyat?

$
0
0
Media Massa(termasuk Media Alternatif) ada kuasa dan pengaruh besar - Mereka yang memilih dan memberikan ruang kepada ahli politik, parti politik dan individu...TETAPI gambaran yang diberikan kadang-kadang mungkin salah...atau akan memprejudiskan rakyat Malaysia...MEDIA mempunyai tanggungjawab menyalurkan berita, informasi dan pendapat tanpa diskriminasi. Media ada obligasi mendedahkan kebenaran kepada rakyat. Bila pendapat dihebohkan, secara adil pendapat pihak lain juga perlu dihebohkan - Rakyat akan putuskan apa nak percaya dan apa nak tolak...Adakah media massa Malaysia melakukan ini. 




Kini, media massa memberikan gambaran bahawa setengah parti/pemimpin adalah 'penting', atau ini sahaja 'tokoh' yang perlu menerima perhatian rakyat...Suara ramai rakyat yang lain saperti wakil komuniti, wakil pekerja, 'wakil rakyat' dan juga parti politik lain yang bersuara atau yang perlu diberi ruang tidak diberi ruang atau perhatian. Tindakan sedemikian hanya merugikan Malaysia dan rakyat - ramai yang bersuara dahulu mungkin terus kurang bersuara atau berhenti sahaja - kerana media massa tak berminat memberikan mereka ruang. Satu contoh parti politik yang tak dapat perhatian media massa adalah PRM(Parti Rakyat Malaysia) ...selepas segelintir pemimpin tersebut masuk PKR? PRM masih wujud tetapi ...



Lihat isu Infineon Melaka - kenyataan 55 pertubuhan - tetapi satu pun media (atau media alternatif) tidak melapurkan mengenai isu ini.

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

RISIKO KENA SAMAN OLEH SYARIKAT BESAR ATAU INDIVIDU KAYA MENGAKIBATKAN APA YANG MEDIA AKAN MELAPURKAN?

Mungkin kerana kenyataan media adalah mengenai sebuah syarikat masjikan - di mana kesan akibat tindakan guaman dimulakan beberapa syarikat berasaskan lapuran kenyataan penduduk, aktivis ....


Raub Australian Gold Mining (RGAB) has previously filed defamation suits against both Malaysiakini and FMT, insisting that allegations that sodium cyanide used for gold extraction was hazardous to Bukit Koman residents are unsubstantiated - Nurul,Najib,... if you are for Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Opinion, HR Defenders, Press Freedom... - Withdraw Defamation Suits?

Settled? Lynas should restore Free Malaysia Today's press freedom...


Justeru, akibat daripada tindakan guaman (biasa saman malu) yang dilakukan terhadap media oleh syarikat/corporation, ramai media sudah jadi TAKUT melapurkan apa-apa pernyataan rakyat atau berita yang menghebohkan kemungkinan besar salahlaku atau ketidakadilan yang dilakukan syarikat. 

Mengapa? Jika melawan di Mahkamah, akhirnya media mungkin menang ...tetapi kos perjuangan di Mahkamah dalam kes-kes saman (atau saman malu) agak tinggi - khususnya bila menang pun, syarikat besar(atau individu kaya) ada kapasiti membawa ke Mahkamah Rayuan dan seterusnya juga ke Mahkamah Persekutuan...kos terlalu tinggi...dan juga ganti rugi diperlu bayar agar tinggi...Justeru, kebanyakkan media di Malaysia ambil jalan 'selamat' - jangan lapurkan berita menuduh syarikat besar lakukan salah...SEDIH sekali. Mana dia semangat perjuangan media Malaysia - mana keberanian berjuang menegakkan keadilan tanpa takut ...sedia menghadapi apa-apa risiko demi prinsip? Mungkin, undang-undang boleh digubal menghalang 'serangan' sebegini terhapa pihak media...

Akibat tindakan, pilih memilih suara siapa yang akan dilapurkan - rakyat Malaysia yang rugi... dan kita tidak mengetahui banyak isu atau tentang kehadiran pemimpin yang lain saperi Kasthuri Patto,... 

PKR & BERSATU - BANYAK LIPUTAN MEDIA? APA SOKONGAN AKAR UMBI?

PKR dan PARTI PRIBUMI BERSATU MALAYSIA, serta pemimpin mereka menerima banyak liputan media - TETAPI apakah sebenarnya sokongan rakyat akar umbi kepada kedua-dua parti ini? Menurut pandangan saya, di peringkat akar umbi, kedua-dua parti (dan/atau pemimpin mereka) sebenarnya tak ada banyak sokongan...

Sokongan rakyat di peringkat akar umbi tetap dengan parti politik pembangkang yang lama, dan ada sejarah lama perjuangan....iaitu DAP dan PAS. Sokongan juga ada pada Parti yang dahulu sebahagian daripada Socialist Front(yang tinggal kini hanya Parti Rakyat Malaysia) dan mungkin juga PSM tetapi sokongan ini kebanyakkan daripada golongan rakyat yang lebih tua...kini PRM wujud lagi tetapi nampaknya 'lemah'...

Justeru, 2 parti politik pembangkang yang masih ada sokongan kuat adalah masih DAP dan PAS tetapi masalah yang kerap timbul disebabkan taktik yang digunakan mengekalkan sokongan menjadikan sukar bagi kedua parti ini, iaitu PAS dan DAP bergabung, menentang UMNO-BN. 

PAS & DAP yang ada banyak sokongan akar umbi - Mengapa? Situasi Kini?

PAS

Mengapa? PAS untuk menarik dan mengekalkan sokongan mengunakan 'Islam' sebagai daya tarikan parti...dan media massa hanya kerap melapurkan isu-isu 'undang-undang Islam' dan/atau 'negara Islam' tetapi bukan isu lain mengenai perkara yang lebih kepada semua rakyat Malaysia. Setengah kepimpinan PAS juga hanya menekan isu 'Islam'. Harus disedari bahawa hanya lebih kurang 60% rakyat Malaysia beragama Islam - dan ini menyebabkan kecurigaan di pihak mereka yang bukan beragama Islam(serta mereka beragama Islam yang tidak mahu apa yang PAS tawarkan). Apakah sebenarnya yang ditawarkan oleh PAS? Adakah segelintir rakyat akan dipinggirkan dan dilayan sebagai rakyat 'kelas dua'? Adakah perempuan akan dikira sama taraf dengan lelaki - diberi layanan dan peluang sama termasuk menjadi pemimpin? Masalah yang masih wujud adalah PAS mungkin belum duduk memikir dan berkongsi apakah sebenarnya perubahan yang akan berjuang untuk - pencukaian, pekerjaan, pendidikan, hak asasi, dll... ? PAS kuat kerana ahlinya ramai - di mana cawangan/cabangnya aktif dimana semua ahli ada 'kerja' dan tanggungjawab - di mana kepimpinan setempat ada peluang - lihat sahaja aktiviti minguan di semua bandar, di mana ada ceramah umum di mana tak perlu lagi cari 'penceramah' kepimpinan nasional - kerana di semua tempat sudah wujud penceramah serta mereka yang boleh memimpin. Kekurangan besar adalah bahawa 'pengaruh' PAS mungkin hanya di kalangan ahli dan penyokong, dan kurang sekali dikalangan khususnya mereka yang bukan Islam. Pada PRU lepas, PAS membuat langkah penting bila mencalunkan orang bukan Islam sebagai calun PAS - Bagus perkembangan ini, tetapi bolehkah ini sampai kepada satu tahap bila semua individu rakyat Malaysia akan diterima sebagai sama - sama-rata?

DAP

Parti ini ada banyak 'tokoh', wakil rakyat dan pemimpin yang aktif- Karpal Singh, Lim Kit Siang, Hannah Yeaoh, Charles Santiago, Tony Pua, Patto (kini Kasthuri Patto), Teresa Kok, Teng Chang Kim, Tan Seng Giaw, Lim Guan Eng,... - mereka sentiasa keluar media membuat kenyataan dan tindakan. Isu baru dan isu rakyat sering disuarakan...ini sudah lama berlaku, dan terus berlaku. Justeru, ramai menganggap mereka ini berani berjuang...berani bersuara secara terbuka dan konsisten. ...Justeru, sokongan kuat terhadap parti ini...

PARTI Perantaraan - membawa DAP dan PAS bersama? 

Justeru, parti ketiga diperlukan oleh PAS dan DAP...dulu Semangat 46 dan PRM, selepas itu Parti Keadilan (atau kini PKR)...dan kini pula satu lagi parti timbul cuba mendapatkan sokongan rakyat yang tidak mahu UMNO-BN iaitu 'Bersatu'. Keadaan dah berubah kini - kerana Resolusi PAS tak mahu bekerjasama dengan DAP, dan Pakatan Harapan juga dah bubar. Amanah, parti baru yang ditubuhkan kebanyakkan pemimpin yang keluar PAS selepas kalah pilihanraya PAS, juga sudah ada...

PKR - jika dilihat diperingkat akar umbi...di peringkat cawangan, nampaknya masih kecil bilangan sokongan, dan hampir tidak ada aktiviti saperti ceramah umum. Adakah Anwar Ibrahim dan PKR ada sokongan ramai rakyat? Jika bukan kerana sokongan PAS dan DAP, kemungkinan calun PKR mungkin kalah dalam kebanyakkan kerusi yang dipertandingkan. Kalau PKR menganjurkan rapat umum dan ceramah, berapa ramai yang hadhir? PAS dan DAP dalam Pakatan Rakyat memberikan kerusi untuk PKR bertanding, dan olehkerana itu calun PKR menang - jangan PKR salahanggap bahawa semua undi yang diterima calun PKR tanda sokongan rakyat kepada calun PKR???

BERSATU...jika dilihat bahawa tidak ada MP/ADUN UMNO-BN ramai-ramai keluar ikut Muhyiddin atau Mukriz, menunjukkan bahawa jelas mereka dalam UMNO-BN pun tak ada sokong banyak - jadi harapan BERSATU adalah bahawa mereka yang menyokong pembangkang akan menyokong mereka kali ini ...Mengelikan hasrat Muhyiddin atau mana-mana pemimpin BERSATU jadi Perdana Menteri atau pemimpin pembangkang...Mahathir ada 'peminat' - itu pun kerana bila beliau menulis atau berceramah, ada banyak poin dan isikandungan yang bagus. Adakah ini akan menjadi undi sekiranya Mahathir bertanding - kemungkinan tidak...tetapi jika ia satu-satu calun menentang calun UMNO-BN, dengan sokongan DAP dan parti pembangkang lain, mungkin menang... Bagaimana pula Muhyiddin atau Mukriz? Adakah rakyat akan lupa bahawa mereka ini sudah nama dalam UMNO-BN - yang adalah bertanggungjawab untuk negara dalam keadaan kini sekarang ...Mereka, saperti Anwar, tidak keluar sendiri daripada UMNO tetapi telah disingkirkan sebelum sempat dipilih jadi Perdana Menteri? Adakah mereka ini sudah berubah...atau hanya masih didorong keinginan mahu jadi PM - bukan kebaikkan rakyat dan negara? Anwar Ibrahim pun, jika memanggil perhimpunan rakyat menunjukkan sokongan akan sedari bahawa sokongan amat kurang - kali terakhir beliau ke Mentakab, yang keluar hanya lebih kurang 150? Rakyat bukan bodoh...

TANPA KERJASAMA PAS DAN DAP ...?
Justeru, jika kedua-dua PAS dan DAP keluar daripada apa-apa 'Pakatan' atau 'electoral pact' dengan PKR atau BERSATU(2 parti ini dimulakan mereka yang ditendang keluar UMNO bukan 'resign' berasaskan prinsip), kemungkinannya adalah mereka akan kalah teruk - mungkin hilang deposit..

TETAPI ...rakyat kini hanya mahu keluarkan UMNO-BN, dan sanggup mengundi siapa sahaja yang tawarkan diri sebagai 'alternatif' ...Jangan pula parti pembangkang salah anggap ini sebagai sokongan kepada parti, dasar dan perjuangan parti pembangkang... Oh nanti - tapi apakah 'dasar' atau 'polisi'....atau 'program' parti pembangkang...Apakah yang mereka akan menukar? 

CARA MENTADBIR KERAJAAN NEGERI akan menjadi faktor PRU akan datang juga? 

Janji akan mengadakan 'Pilihanraya Kerajaan Tempatan' - pun kini sudah tak lagi diutamakan...mungkin undang-undang Persekutuan kena dipinda sebelum ini boleh dibuat TETAPI kenapa pula tak ada pilihanraya pemimpin kampung/taman/kampung baru/...secara demokratik. Kenapa cara pentadbiran di Negeri tidak menjadi lebih demokratik - dengan lebih ruang penyertaan rakyat setempat? Azmin Ali sendiri masih lagi belum buat pengistiharan harta - lihat sahaja laman rasmi kerajaan negeri....Begitu juga Elizabeth Wong(PKR) - bagus beberapa yang lain setelah isu kegagalan mereka ditimbulkan telah membuat Pengistiharan Harta?http://www.selangor.gov.my/index.php/pages/view/90Bila mula-mula blog isu exco tak istihar harta pada 1/12/2016,Nik Nazmi dan Zaidi Abdul Talib pun tidak buat pendedahan, kini sudah ada - SYABAS.

Adakah Azmin Ali berikan gambar palsu mengenai perisytiharan harta MB dan Exco Selangor? MB sendiri nampaknya tak dedah?

Azmin dilapurkan kata “Ya, saya akan isytihar kepada umum.” - Bilakah kita boleh lihat pengistiharan harta ini?

Azmin Ali dan beberapa Exco Selangor masih belum isytihar harta lagi?




MEDIA hanya memberikan ruang kepada setengah pemimpin dan/atau ahli politik - justeru rakyat tidak dapat mengenali mereka yang lain ... Siapakah yang akan jadi PM sekiranya pembangkang menang? Yang kita kenali semua pemimpin yang media cover...Ramai lain tidak mendapat liputan media - mungkin bukan salah media kerana 'wakil rakyat' ini tidak membuat apa-apa kenyataan media atau apa-apa...

Adakah media Malaysia bebas dan berkecuali? Atau adakah media Malaysia boleh diklaskan sebagai media pro-UMNO-BN dan media pro-Pembangkang (atau hanya pro-Pakatan tertentu)? Media mungkin ada pendirian - tetapi pendirian sewajarnya adalah pendirian demi kebenaran dan keadilan - bukan sama sekali menghebohkan salah laku satu parti, tetapi bukan parti yang lain...

Media juga harus mendidik rakyat mengenai isu dan fakta. Contohnya, FELDA ...satu program FELDA adalah peneroka yang telah diberikan tanah - justeru bukan sahaja 'derma' atau 'bantuan kewangan' - tetapi juga kini 'capacity' untuk menjana pendapatan sendiri....FELDA milik rakyat Malaysia...bukan peneroka dan keluarga mereka. Berapa sebenarnya milik saham/syer saham peneroka dalam FGV? Kenapa peneroka FELDA masih perlu diberikan 'pinjaman bulanan' semasa menunggu hasil tanaman mereka boleh menjana pendapatan...kenapa mereka tak boleh gunakan wang yang diterima hasil kerja mereka? Tak lojik - adakah semua pekebun kecil perlu bergantung kepada 'pinjaman'? Ini isu kesalahan tadbir wang mereka sendiri...Jika FELDA, agensi kerajaan, rugi atau 'salahgunakan' wang - itu isu rakyat Malaysia - bukan isu peneroka FELDA atau keluarga mereka. Tetapi, MEDIA gagal menyelidik dan mendedahkan apa sebenarnya FELDA...?  
 
 
Isu GST - adakah media menjelaskan apa perubahan bila GST dikemukakan...apa sebenarnya perkara yang tak betul? Fokus kini adalah hanya kesan 'kenaikkan harga'...tapi ada lebih daripada itu, di mana MEDIA(kerana ahli/parti politik gagal...) terpaksa memberikan rakyat kefahaman perlu dengan memberikan kita fakta dan sebagai...(ini akan dibincangkan lebih dalam pos akan datang...sabar...)? Ini isu pendapatan negara - cukai, dll...Dulu, bila beli setem - wang itu akan terus pergi ke kerajaan tetapi kini...Kenapa pembayaran untuk perkhidmatan kerajaan pun ada GST...anih?
 
 

Response to Infineon's Response to 55 Groups Statement -

$
0
0
UPDATE:- 26/6/2017

Infineon Melaka Issue - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre carried the statement by 55 groups. The Re-Joinder was published, but they had technical problems - resulting in us not finding it on their website...

INFINEON must stop union busting and discrimination against union leaders



Logo

And, then they carried Infineon's response..

Response by Infineon

Then BHRRC asked the groups to prepare a response to Infineon's response, which they said that this will be published together with INFINEON's response...unfortunately, to date, there is no publication possibly because Infineon did not make a response...so, now we publish the said response from the 55 groups..Hopefully, we will be able to get an Infineon Response soon... [The Infineon's response to which the 55 groups responded to is found below the groups' response]

**UPDATE:- I was just informed that BHRRC did publish - but "Apparently it was published since March. I was looking for the rejoinder and could find it, till today. BHRRC told me that they had technical problems with the tagging." - https://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/NGO%20rejoinger%206%20March%202017%20Infineon.pdf

6 March 2017
It has been decided to issue a rejoinder to INFINEON’s response. Attached please find the response authored by Charles Hector, Syed Shahir bin Syed Mohamud, Mohd Roszeli bin Majid,Pranom Somwong via Good Electronics with the support of 54organisations, trade unions and groups. As an attachment to the response, a document containing documentary evidence is included
(Zulfadlee–WRONG DISMISSAL INFINEON DOC fin).

This response of the 55 groups to Infineon's response was prepared and send to BHRRC on or about mid-March, and we have waited for too long. As in courts, after our submission, Infineon did response - and naturally there is the right of reply to the points made by Infineon. Infineon has the right to reply again, and if they do, then we will publish it here...To read again the original Joint Statement - 55 Groups - INFINEON MUST STOP UNION BUSTING AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION LEADERS - Reinstate Union President?



RESPONSE TO INFINEON’S REPLY TO STATEMENT OF 55 GROUPS

This is the response to Infineon’s response to the Joint Statement of 55 groups and organisation including trade unions,  that was published in the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre website. Infineon was responding to the Joint Statement of 31/1/2017 was entitled, ‘INFINEON MUST STOP UNION BUSTING AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION LEADERS -Reinstate Zulfadlee Thye Abdullah, President of Infineon Technologies Melaka Workers Union’ 

Response to Infineon’s assertion that statement ‘contains factually incorrect and subjective conclusions’

In Infineon’s response, it is alleged that the statement ‘contains factually incorrect and subjective conclusions’ but there is no mention at what exactly is ‘factually incorrect’, hence making it difficult to respond effectively to clarify INFINEON’s assertions.

In any event, we will respond to some of the issues raised by INFINEON. We also enclose a follow-up document entitled’ WRONGFUL DISMISSAL OF ZULFADLEE BY INFINEON’ which have also already been sent to Infineon. The said document is a more comprehensive record of facts, supported also by documentary evidence, verified by the affected Union President, Zulfadlee. It  forms part of our rebuttal to Infineon’s reply.

Response to Infineon’s assertion ‘there is no truth to the allegation that Infineon is “union busting” or discriminating against union leaders and officers.’  

Infineon states that ‘there is no truth to the allegation that Infineon is “union busting” or discriminating against union leaders and officers.’ This can quickly be rebutted by the following points:-

a) Whilst about 40 employee and union members took part in the said Union rally, disciplinary action has only been commenced on the Union President, and then 6 other Union leaders. The Union President was wrongfully dismissed, and the other Union leaders were allegedly given lesser punishment of warnings. This, itself, suggest the targeting of Union leaders.

b) The fact that Zulfadlee was the Union President was a consideration, possibly a material consideration, in the disciplinary proceedings against an employee.  The disciplinary proceeding, from the decision to initiate disciplinary action to the final rejection of the appeal, should never been based on the fact that he was the Union President.  This is evidenced by, amongst others, Infineon’s own letter rejecting the employee’s appeal against the decision to dismiss dated 6/1/2017 - ‘…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…While that may ordinarily be a mitigating factor in considering any appeal, the Management has decided that the your act of malingering is deemed to be unacceptable and is aggravated in view of you being the Union President’. This letter is undisputable documentary evidence, and is also included in the follow-up document attached below.

c) The law in Malaysia is settled that a Union President or office bearer or a union member, even if he has been dismissed, more so if he claims wrongful dismissal, continues to be the Union President until the dismissal matter is ultimately resolved in the courts, and as Union President, he has the right to carry out all his functions and responsibilities. This matter was brought to the attention of Infineon, but disappointingly Infineon has specifically denied  Zulfadlee entry and/or access  to even the Union office, and also be involved in the Collective Bargaining process between the Union and Infineon. See email from Infineon dated 17/1/2017, which is also included in the attached document.

d) The action against the other 6, which has been alleged to have ended with  ‘warnings‘, may bring about ‘greater pressure’ on these leaders, which may even result in the union being compromised.   A warning impacts to promotions and increments, as seen in in Infineon’s own document on Misconducts found in the attached documents. It would affect the way a Union may behave after this? Will they be more agreeable with Employer demands? Will they not fight as hard for workers? Only time will tell – but the risk is high that following the disciplinary action taken against the President and 6 others in the Union Committee, the Union maybe less demanding and more accommodating to the demands of the Company.

Response to Infineon’s assertion that ‘the reason for the dismissal was a misconduct committed’

a) Infineon allegations that the reason for the dismissal was a misconduct committed but it must be pointed out that it was not a misconduct  listed in Infineon’s own comprehensive and specific list of misconducts that covers both expressed and implied breaches of contract. It is wrong to create a new misconduct,  that  never existed before just to take disciplinary action against an employee. An act of malingering may be a misconduct for many other employers, but in this case, it is not in the list as contained in INFINEON Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd’s document entitled Policy for Misconduct and Disciplinary, which is also in the attached document.

b) In Malaysia, even in a situation when an act of malingering is a valid employment misconduct (not so in our case), the courts considered this was merely a ‘technical misconduct’ certainly not one warranting dismissal. In that case, the worker had played football when on sick leave. (Azali Elias V. Crown Jewel Hotel Industrial Court, Penang, Award No: 331 Of 2008 Case No: 9/4-1634/05, 26 February 2008).

Response to Infineon’s assertion ‘…the employee did admit his misconduct towards the company…’

Infineon alleged that ‘…the employee did admit his misconduct towards the company…’ but provides no reference as to when and/or where this admission happens. As such, it makes it difficult for us to respond to this assertion by Infineon. In any event, our brief response is as follows:-

a) In fact, after perusal of all the relevant documents, he never admitted to committing any act of malingering, an employment misconduct.  In his letter dated 9/11/2016 in response to Infineon’s allegation, he clearly says, “…I  would  humbly  explain and mention that my action on the 18" October 20 16, did not break any rules or procedures in the Employment Act 1955 (Section 60 - Medical Leave), Company Policy For Sick Leave & Hospitalization and also the Company Policy for Misconduct and Disciplinary Action…”. This letter can be seen in the attached document below.

b)  One cannot be guilty of a misconduct that did not exist at the time when it is alleged to have happened . The existing list of misconducts in Infineon Melaka do not make committing ‘an act of malingering’ a misconduct. The charge levied against Zuldfadlee also does not make reference to any of the listed misconducts in Infineon Melaka. An admission to a misconduct that did not even exist at the material time is irrelevant and meaningless. In any event, we find no admission of committing misconduct. A new misconduct cannot be created unilaterally by an employer, it must be done with the agreement of both the employer and the employee(and/or union).

c)  Admission to an allegation (or ‘misconduct’) not clearly explained and/or understood to the accused will be no real admission in law. To  allege a worker had committed a misconduct, in this case being an ‘act of malingering’, in English to a worker more proficient in the local language of Malay, and not to properly explain at any time as to what is the real meaning of the charge of committing an ‘act of malingering’ is very wrong. One cannot admit to a charge one does not understand.

d) The charge against the employee was also made further confusing when it included the fact that he was on sick leave and had participated in a union activity on the said date – this would tend to give the wrong impression to a worker. He/she may be misled into believing that ‘an act of malingering’ means the participating in a union activity whilst on sick leave (a non-working day). That clearly  is not the meaning of this misconduct – it means pretending (or feigning) illness to avoid work. What  a worker was seen doing whilst on paid sick leave may only be the basis for the Employer suspecting that there may be a possibility that an ‘act of malingering’ may have been committed by the said worker - but it certainly is not proof that an ‘act of malingering’ was committed.

e) Infineon had never did adduce any proof that Zulfadlee had lied about his condition to obtain the sick leave, OR that he ‘feigned illness’ to avoid work. To prove that one committed an act of malingering, it must be proven that he pretended to be sick(when not really sick) for the purpose of avoiding work.  Here, in our case, Zulfadlee was examined by a qualified doctor from Infineon’s own panel clinic who certified that he was indeed sick and his condition warranted the issuing of a medical certificate which made him entitled to a paid sick leave(a non-working day). Being still not well, the following day, Zulfadlee saw a specialist doctor, and was again given paid sick leave for another 3 days. A radiology report confirms that he indeed had a genuine medical problem, being a stone in the bladder/kidney. As such, to suggest that Zulfadlee was feigning illness would be irrational and without basis. These documents are also in the attached document below.

f) Zulfadlee has never denied the fact that he did attend the Union activity, and he has always maintained that this decision to participate in the union activity was made after he had seen the doctor, and after he was already on sick leave. The decision to go and participate was a last minute decision, certainly not the reason why he went to see the doctor in the first place.

g) In Malaysia, a paid sick leave is a right in law, and is a paid ‘non-working day’. As such, this dismissal goes against Infineon’s own position, as stated even in Infineon’s own response, i.e  ‘…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)…’.  A paid sick leave is such a ‘non-working day. 

h) Zulfadlee was allegedly also given false representations by Infineon’s management staff, i.e. that the employer was unhappy with his attendance at a union activity whilst he was on sick leave, and if he was willing to admit to that ‘mistake’ and apologize, all will be well. This misrepresentation would have also aggravated the misunderstanding as to the alleged misconduct of committing an ‘act of malingering’ was. This representations (or misrepresentations) of the employer’s officers/agents may have also affected his conduct in dealing with the charged levied against him.   

i) Even the Domestic Inquiry would not be considered a valid Domestic Inquiry as required by law and/or justice. There was no right to be represented by a lawyer, a union representative or some other. The charge was also invalid and void, for reasons already made. It was defective – confusing, unclear, never  explained and most importantly not an agreed misconduct in Infineon Melaka at the material time. Even when translated to Malay, on the request of Zulfadlee, it was not even an accurate translation, and can be said to be misleading. As the Domestic Inquiry was considered invalid, certainly not in accordance to the accepted standards of justice, we choose to not discuss that too much at this stage.Now,if he was represented by a good lawyer, we would most likely be where we are today – Zulfadlee would have been happily working in Infineon.

Response to the assertion ‘Infineon does not want to go into more details until the administrative/judicial process brought by the employee is completed.’

a) This matter is NOT yet before the Industrial Court, and there is nothing preventing  Infineon and Zulfadlee, the dismissed Union President, from resolving this matter now, and ensuring that justice is done. The Union President is ready, but Infineon seems not.

b) In Malaysia, a dismissed worker MUST file a complaint at the Industrial Relations Department (IRD) within 60 days if we wants to claim reinstatement. The IRD will then call both the Employer and Wrongfully Dismissed  Worker and attempt a Conciliation.

c) If conciliation fails, the matter is referred to the Minister who then decides whether to refer the matter to Industrial Court or not – only about 60 over percent of cases gets referred. If not referred, the worker can still apply for Judicial Review at the High Court – but the cost is high and most workers simply will not be able to afford it and justice will not be done. If the Minister refers a case to the Industrial Court, then the case will proceed – but it all takes a very long time in Malaysia. As an example, the case Wan Noorulazhar bin Mohd Hanafiah, an employee of RENESAS who is the President of the Electronic Industry Employees Union Western Region, Peninsular Malaysia (EIEUWR) was dismissed on 26/8/2011 by RENESAS, is still yet to be disposed by the Industrial Court after more than 5 years.  Now, even if the worker is successful at the Industrial Court, the Employer usually appeals, and when all is done it may be about 9 years or even more.

d) Even when a matter is before the court, there is nothing preventing an earlier and speedy resolution of the dispute. To choose to simply wait for the courts to finally resolve the dispute, more so in a situation where the parties are certainly not in equal footing, as in this case between an employer who continues unaffected as to business and profits, and an employee who has now lost his employment and income, is certainly no action or conduct of a just employer.

e) If the case in courts takes too long to resolve, even when the wrongfully dismissed workers wins, the court may most likely not consider ordering reinstatement viable, but may simply order compensation in lieu of reinstatement.  In Malaysia, the law was amended several years ago, despite the protest of unions and workers,  and a maximum limit has been placed on compensation in lieu of reinstatement - no more than 24 months back wages. This is highly prejudicial to workers especially when wrongful dismissal cases takes so long to end.  Previously, before the amendment,  the worker would have been entitled to back wages from the day of wrongful dismissal or until at least the date of final judgment.

f) In Malaysia, even when the affected worker is a union member, unions may not be able to bear the cost and expense of a prolonged legal battle, and the affected worker will end up paying the legal fees and the cost of struggle in court. Both parties will already have to bear their own legal fees, but when the case goes to the High Court, there is additional question of cost.

g) In the Industrial Court, there is no cost that the loser will be ordered to pay the victor, but when the matter reaches the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, the courts will generally order the loser to pay cost to the winner, and this can be very high possibly even tens of thousands of ringgit.

h) With the new limit of merely 24 months back wages, most workers would not be able to continue their struggle and would simply give up – Justice will not be done. Even if they are finally successful, workers may end up paying their lawyers even more than what they get. High waged or richer workers  maybe  able to afford a prolonged battle in the Malaysian courts, but lower waged workers (including possibly Zulfadlee) may not be able to afford the cost and time of a long legal battle.

i) Infineon must be fully aware of this fact, as such the taking of the position of waiting ‘…until the administrative/judicial process brought by the employee is completed...’ can be considered unjust and an anti-human rights position.

j) As such, we hope that Infineon would change its position, and choose to ensure that justice is done speedily now. Justice delayed is justice denied.

k) Considering  additionally, that this is a case of the Union President. One must consider the impact that it may have on the Union, its members and also other workers at Infineon. It may result in a weak, fearful and ‘friendly’ trade union, which we hope is not what Infineon wants.  In its Business Conduct Guidelines, it says that Infineon “…respect and acknowledge the right of employees to form representative bodies to conduct collective bargaining negotiations on working conditions…”, and a weak  or ‘compromised’ union will surely not be the kind of union that Infineon, that ‘…respects worker and human rights…”, will want or is it?

INFINEON should be committed to Much Higher Standards not simply Malaysian standards or Infineon Melaka’s standards

a) In its Business Conduct Guidelines, Infineon that it is ‘…especially committed to respecting and protecting human rights and have undertaken to uphold the principles of the United Nations Global Compact in relation to human rights, labor standards, …Infineon also claims that they ‘…observe and promote the basic fundamental principles defined in the conventions of the International Labor Organization (ILO).

b) Infineon, being a German Company, is also bound by the OECD Guidelines. As a member of the  Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition(EICC),  it is also bound by the EICC Code of Conduct. Being in the supply chain of major brands like Apple, BOSCH, Philips, Microsoft, Hewlette Packard, Dell and Continental, it is also bound by their Codes of Conduct, Standards and Best Practices.

c) It is sad that in its response, Infineon seems to be only looking at its own compliance guidelines and the local Malaysian labour laws, when it should be guided by these higher standards and best practices.

e) Malaysia has not even ratified all  the core ILO Conventions. When Malaysia wanted to be part of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), Malaysia had to enter into an Agreement with the United States to make substantial amendments to most of its existing labour legislations, a condition that it had to fulfil, before it could be a party to the TPPA. These amendments were being prepared to be tabled, which we hope still be tabled soon despite recent development that may not see the TPPA going forward. Infineon, should be looking to the higher standards and international best practices rather than simply looking at lower standards in Malaysia.

d) It must be pointed out here, that we have yet to highlight points of non-compliance of the UN Global Compact, OECD Guidelines, EICC Code of Conduct, basic fundamental principles of ILO, and other standards and codes of conducts including also INFINEON’s own conduct guidelines. This will be done at a later date, if still deemed necessary.

e) In the Infineon’s response, there was mentioned about  disciplinary actions taken against ‘6 other union leaders for misconduct’. We believe there are valid concerns about these actions too, but at this time we choose not to deal with this. We have also not dealt with some other minor issues raised, but we believe that we have raised some points on the main issues contained in Infineon’s response . If needed, we may provide a further response later, or maybe even provide a further reply, if needed, when Infineon responds to this response.

It must also be pointed out that the GoodElectronics and the other 54 groups that are co-signatories of the Joint Statement dated 31/1/2017, did consider the relevant facts, the law and international standards and best practice, and we stand by this statement and urge Infineon to immediately comply with the stated demands.

This document entitled’ WRONGFUL DISMISSAL OF ZULFADLEE BY INFINEON’ is also included as part of our response to Infineon’s reply.

We verily believe that Infineon at Melaka(or some officers there), may have made a mistake, and we hope that in all fairness, Infineon would do the needful, as per our demands and more. Infineon must demonstrate that it will ‘…take decisive action against any form of discrimination..’ – in this case a discrimination against an employee/s possibly by reason of the position he/ they held in the union?  

We also hope that Infineon will immediately stop preventing the Union President from carrying out his duties/responsibilities. He should be allowed to enter the Union office.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. Zulfadlee, the Union President, has indicated that he is ever willing to return to work, and has also indicated that he would not hold any grudge against the company, and will also endeavour to move forward in the spirit of industrial harmony between the Union and Infineon.

As such, we hope that this ‘mistake’ could be speedily resolved, without any further delay.

# The document entitled WRONGFUL DISMISSAL OF ZULFADLEE BY INFINEON is attached here.

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

For and on behalf of the 55 organisations, 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
IndustriALL Global 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 South Initiative (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)


#####
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.

2The 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

 

Related post:- 

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

 

 

Article 10:- Malaysia: Drop Criminal Charges against Human Rights Defender Siti Kasim

$
0
0

Malaysia: Drop Criminal Charges against Human Rights Defender Siti Kasim


ARTICLE 19 strongly condemns the criminal chargesbrought against lawyer and human rights defender Siti Kasim for “obstructing a public servant in discharge of his public functions” under Section 186 of the Penal Codein connection with a transgender event on 3 April 2016. The event was raided by the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department (JAWI) based on allegations that it violated a 1996 fatwa prohibiting Muslim women from joining beauty pageants in Malaysia.

Siti Kasim has been a staunch defender of human rights and in particular the rights of minority groups such as the LGBT community and indigenous peoples in Malaysia.
At the time of incident, Siti was a guest at the private transgender fundraising dinner at the Renaissance Hotel in Kuala Lumpur when JAWI officials raided the premises, in the presence of media personnel, and prevented about 200 guests from leaving the premises. Siti, who had inquired about the sudden raid and had attempted to mediate the situation, was detained and brought to Dang Wangi police station along with the event's transgender organiser for questioning.
Siti maintains that JAWI did not have a warrant to raid the private event and that they were unaccompanied by police. At the time, JAWI denied that Siti was under arrest after detaining her.
However, on 13 June 2017, more than a year after the event, Siti was notified of the charges under Section 186 of the Penal Code, which carry a penalty of two years imprisonment and/or a RM10,000 fine. In November 2016, Siti had filed a court order to ask for information relating to the raid, for the purpose of suing the government and JAWI officers for unlawful arrest.
Section 10(a) of Malaysia’s Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression for all, and the decision to raid the transgender event and subsequently charge Siti represents a violation of LGBT expression. The 2014 joint statement of international and regional mandate holders on freedom of expression, freedom of association and assembly and human rights defenders noted in particular the importance of states’ obligation to protect the right to freedom of expression for LGBT people, stating:
“Protecting and promoting the rights of LGBTI people to free expression, association, and peaceful assembly is crucial to end their discrimination and address the appalling human rights violations inflicted upon them.” The mandate holders insisted that “These are not only basic rights, but they are also essential in allowing individuals to claim other rights, in particular the rights to freedom from discrimination and equality before the law, and they can contribute to fostering public debate in society.”
“Malaysia's LGBT community is highly at risk and continues to struggle to have their basic rights, including the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association, recognised. LGBT individuals who attempt to assert their rights regularly face discrimination and arrest, and some have been subjected to hate crimes or murdered. It is deeply concerning that those speak up for the community are targeted in this way by authorities like JAWI.” said David Diaz Jogiex, ARTICLE 19's Director of Programmes.
ARTICLE 19 calls on the Malaysian government to immediately drop charges against Siti Kasim. The government should also take immediate steps to bring provisions in the Penal Code that can be used to limit the right to freedom of opinion and expression into line with international human rights law. The Malaysian government must strive to recognise and protect the rights of all its citizens, including the right to freedom of expression in line with Section 10(a) of the Federal Constitution.
For more information:
Please contact Miss Nalini Elumalai, Malaysia Program Manager at 01136535927 or email: nalini@article19.org

Footnotes
1. Malaysiakini – Siti Kasim charged for obstruction over Jawi transgender raid https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/386551
2. The Malay Mail Online – JAWI raids transgender 'beauty pageant' for breaking fatwa http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/jawi-raids-transgender-beauty-pageant-for-breaking-fatwa

SUHAKAM - Hak Pekerja Hak Asasi? Kenyataan Media hasil siasatan kes Infineon Melaka?

$
0
0
SUHAKAM (Malaysian Human Rights Commission) telah bertindak - telah mengeluarkan pendirian melalui kenyataan media dan lapuran, telah melakukan siasatan serta juga 'inquiry'('public inquiry') mengenai banyak isu hak asasi... Tindakan SUHAKAM mengeluarkan kenyataan media sangat bagus dan penting kerana cara ini semua rakyat akan tahu ...berbanding dengan memasukkannya dalam lapuran tahunan atau cetakan lain(di mana ini mengandungi banyak hal perkara, dan ramai tidak akan tahu). Justeru, kenyataan media perlu untuk membawa perhatian kepada isu-isu hak asasi dan pendirian(atau cadangan perubahan) SUHAKAM...TETAPI...

ISU PEKERJA DAN KESATUAN - KHUSUSNYA 'UNION BUSTING'- yang jelas merupakan isu hak asasi dibawah bidangkuasa SUHAKAM, ada kekurangan di puhak SUHAKAM...Lebih 3 bulan sejak isu Infineon Melaka dikemukakan - tapi belum ada kenyataan umum lagi?

Sehingga kini, nampaknya pihak SUHAKAM gagal mengeluarkan kenyataan media mengenai isu pekerja dan kesatuan sekerja. Tidak dinafikan bahawa SUHAKAM mungkin telah menjalankan penyiasatan, mengadakan mesyuarat dan sebagainya TETAPI bagi pengadu, termasuk pekerja dan kesatuan sekerja di Malaysia, yang sangat bermakna adalah penyataan SUHAKAM mengenai aduan atau isu yang telah dibawa kepada perhatian SUHAKAM - 

Kenyataan Media adalah paling berkesan...(SUHAKAM ada membuat pernyataan mengenai isu pekerja migran - Bagus...tetapi bagaimana pula dengan isu hak pekerja dan Kesatuan...Jangan lupa bahawa perundangan pekerja/kesatuan di Malaysia sangat berkurangan...jika pun mengambil kira piawai antarabangsa (international standards)...

Ini juga menjadi nyata bila Amerika Syarikat memerlukan Malaysia menandatangani perjanjian akan meminda undang-undang buruh sebelum Malaysia boleh menjadi satu daripada negara dalam TPPA (mungkin TPPA kini sudah tak relevan tetapi 'perjanjian ini' dan cadangan pindaan yang perlu Malaysia bersetuju kepada adalah masih relevan). Adakah semua negara TPPA perlu buat pindaan sebegini? Oh tidak - hanya Malaysia dan satu dua negara lain sahaja...MALU

Malaysia's Embarassingly Poor Worker and Trade Union Rights Reality - Malaysia – United States Labour Consistency Plan?



Pada 20/10/2014, lebih kurang 150 pekerja dan 20 kesatuan sekerja telah membawa isu 'union busting' dan isu pekerja lain kepada MTUC.TETAPI tak ada kenyataan media daripada SUHAKAM mengenai pendirian SUHAKAM mengenai isu ini...(di mana ini sangat diperlukan untuk semua pekerja dan kesatuan...kalau tidak, apa guna adu kat SUHAKAM[ini adalah pendirian ramai], tetapi bagi saya, lebih perlu lagi banyak aduan di buat supaya SUHAKAM(dan seterusnya mungkin kerajaan) akan anggap ini isu penting.) 4 Bulan selepas itu, pada 23/2/2015, SUHAKAM telah adakan 'Meeting on Union Busting Issue Raised By MTUC' ...terlalu lama kerana tak penting? Selepas itu pun nampaknya tak ada kenyataan umum mengenai isu ini...

Oleh kerana 'kegagalan'(atau persepsi 'kegagalan') SUHAKAM bersuara akan menyemai pemikiran 'tak guna bawa isu/aduan kepada SUHAKAM' - Berapa banyak aduan/isu di bawa oleh pekerja dan kesatuan sekerja di Malaysia kepada SUHAKAM selepas itu? Mungkin tiada apa atau sangat sikit ...Justeru, penting sekali SUHAKAM sentiasa keluarkan kenyataan media/umum mengenai pendapat/pendirian SUHAKAM serta juga cadangan mereka apa yang perlu sangat dibuat untuk memastikan hak pekerja dan kesatuan sekerja dihormati di Malaysia...JAGA-JAGA, kalau tidak SUHAKAM akan menjadi 'tidak relevan' bagi pekerja dan Kesatuan di negara ini??





Pada 17/3/2017, isu mengenai apa yang berlaku di Infineon Melaka - isu 'union busting', telah dibawa kepada perhatian SUHAKAM...Ini adalah isu yang telah ditimbulkan oleh 55 kumpulan termasuk juga MTUC, di mana ini juga telah dilapurkan di media tempatan...

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


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

Kesatuan INFINEON Melaka bertahan? Mana penguatkuasaan undang-undang pekerja?


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.”.- FMT News, 17/3/2017


HARAPAN - SUHAKAM akan segera keluarkan kenyataan media mengenai isu di Infineon Melaka...

Mengapa SUHAKAM menunggu?

Biasanya bila kes sudah berada di Mahkamah, SUHAKAM mungkin sukar mahu membuat kenyataan...tetapi kes Zulfadlee, Presiden Union di Infineon Melaka belum lagi sampai Mahkamah - kini menunggu keputusan Menteri, iaitu sama ada kes ini dirujuk ke Mahkamah Perusahaan atau tidak...Justeru, tak ada halangan mengapa SUHAKAM tidak boleh menghebohkan keputusan siasatan mereka..

Secara tambahan, kes yang akan dirujuk atau tidak oleh Menteri hanya merupakan kes pembuangan kerja, dan isu 'union busting' dan isu 'Majikan menghalang Presiden Union melakukan tugas dan terlibat dalam aktiviti union' masih boleh SUHAKAM komen...atau nyatakan pendirian.

Dalam kes pekerja/kesatuan, tindakan mesti cepat - sebab setiap hari tindakan tidak membetulkan ketidakadilan dan/atau pelangaran/pencabulan undang-undang negara sama ada oleh SUHAKAM atau Kementerian Sumber Manusia, yang menderita adalah pekerja dan kesatuan...

Nyata satu persepsi kini adalah bahawa kerajaan UMNO-BN adalah pro-majikan, adakah ini sebab mengapa SUHAKAM melewatkan membuat kenyataan...adakah ini sebab mengapa Kementerian walaupun sudah lama menyedari tentang isu ini tidak melakukan penguatkuasaan undang-undang... Kesatuan INFINEON Melaka bertahan? Mana penguatkuasaan undang-undang pekerja?


Kesatuan Sekerja di Infineon Melaka, berkemungkinan, menghadapi tekanan tinggi daripada pihakmajikan - Yang ditakuti adalah bahawa ahli exco/peimipinan Union dalaman ini(selain daripada Zulfadlee) dan ahli Union yang lain akan akhirnya memilih menyokong majikan, dan mengetepikan Presiden Union...kerana semua masih pekerja di Infineon Melaka. Harapan adalah ahli dan pemimpin kesatuan lain di Infineon Melaka akan terus 'berani' dan kebal ...menentang ketidakadilan yang dilakukan terhadap Presiden dan Union mereka....

SUHAKAM KENA BERTINDAK SEKARANG MENGENAI KES INI - "“Suhakam will put an end to this.”

 

   





Workers march against 'union busting' in KL

20 October 2014 Print page
Anne Muhammad


About 150 workers and 20 Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) representatives were on foot today to send memorandums to protest against ‘union busting’.

At about 10am, they started their walk from Keretapi Tanah Melayu station in Kuala Lumpur towards the offices of the Bar Council and Suhakam.



Railwaymen’s Union of Malaya (RUM) representative Abdul Razak Md Hassan said the march was the climax of a protest against the sacking of 41 Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) workers.

“We walk today to denounce this act against the right to be in a union,” he said.

National Union of Transport and Allied Workers and National Union of Bank Employees were also represented.

The memorandum urged the Bar Council and Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) to demand that the government stop infringing on union rights and as well introduce laws to prevent employers from committing such violations.

The protesters split up into two groups, one to the Bar Council, and the other to Suhakam.

They were dressed in black while chanting “Hidup pekerja” (long live workers) and “hentikan pencabulan hak pekerja” (stop violating the rights of workers).



The first group, headed by the MTUC president Khalid Atan, handed over a memorandum to Bar Council’s deputy chief executive officer Chan Oy Sim.

They regrouped in front of shopping complex Sogo and walked towards Suhakam to hand over the same memorandum to its commissioner James Nayagam.

“We are walking today to condemn the violations committed towards us that can destroy the unions in this country. These violations have an adverse impact on the future of the workers in Malaysia,” Abdul Razak said in a speech before meeting the commissioner.

Around 12pm Nayagam met up with Abdul Razak and a few other representatives for a 10 minute discussion.

Previously, RUM had challenged KTMB president Elias Kadir to debate with the union to explain why its members were sacked. The assembly dispersed around 12.45pm.

Source: Malaysiakini
MTUC Website

 

Kleptocracy - Malu Parlimen Gagal Mendedahkan? Kualiti Wakil Rakyat?

$
0
0
1MDB bukan merupakan satu-satu syarikat milik kerajaan yang kemungkinan telah berlaku 'kleptocracy', penyalahgunaan kuasa atau 'korupsi'- ia mungkin telah berlaku dalam banyak syarikat milik penuh kerajaan yang lain - MAS, dll...dan juga syarikat yang kerajaan memiliki lebih 50% atau menguasai ....

Amat memalukan kerana yang telah mendedahkan atau menghebohkan isu ini bukan Ahli Parlimen( sama ada dari parti pembangkang atau backbencher UMNO-BN) - Ini adalah satu kegagalan Parlimen - tugas memastikan pihak eksekutif(Kabinet dan PM)tidak buat salah ditangan MP gagal dilakukan...Soalan yang perlu ditanya adalah 'MENGAPA'? 

Adakah ahli parlimen ini semua tidak mempunyai 'quality' atau kecekapan perlu - Mereka adalah wakil RAKYAT untuk memastikan semua berjalan dengan baik. [Yang mula mendedahkan pun bukan mana-mana ajensi kerajaan yang dipertanggungjawabkan memastikan undang-undang negara dihormati --- Yang mendedahkan buat kali pertama adalah orang lain] ....

Kini parti pembangkang kerja memaklumkan kepada rakyat apa yang berlaku...di mana ini adalah bagus...tetapi kegagalan 'pertama' jangan kita lupakan...




MENGAPA? Adakah Ahli Parlimen kita tak cekap, tak pandai atau mungkin tak prihatin sangat isu sebegini? ...justeru gagal menunaikan tugas utama memastikan PM dan Kabinet PM tidak melakukan perkara yang tak betul...

Adakah Ahli Parlimen kita 'malas'- hanya tunggu 'orang lain' dedahkan dan media hebohkan selepas itu baru mereka pun bersuara? Tidakkah ahli Parlimen harus sentiasa memantau ...menyiasat untuk melihat sama ada apa-apa yang tak betul...memastikan tak ada kleptocracy...memastikan tak ada pelupusan wang rakyat? Justeru calun yang kita semua memilih amat penting...

AHLI PARLIMEN - Ada yang hanya mahu jadi dan kekal jadi YB - Tetapi hadhir sahaja di Parlimen, tanya soalan atau bersuara tak memadai... Apakah yang disuarakan oleh MP penting - lihat sahaja Hansard(Minit) Parlimen ...boleh di sana kita menilai 'quality' ahli Parlimen kita. 

Saya telah menyatakan bahawa kita memerlukan ahli parlimen sepenuh masa...tetapi sedih ramai Ahli Parlimen kita masih 'wakil rakyat' separa masa - banyak masih meluangkan masa untuk perniagaan peribadi...Kita bukan memerlukan Ahli Parlimen yang asyik 'jalan-jalan senyum lambai' di kawasan Parlimen biasa semasa majlis kahwin atau ada sesiapa meninggal...Interaksi serius dengan rakyat pun sangat kurang....Bagaimana boleh mewakili rakyat jika tidak ada perbincangan dengan rakyat?

PANDAI dan berpendidikan tinggi...itu tak perlu. Hanya memerlukan seorang yang baik...kerana walaupun tak fasih tentang banyak perkara, seorang ahli parlimen bijak akan meminta bantuan orang untuk lebih arif membantu beliau memahami sesuatu isu...atau membantu melakukan kerja pemantauan dan/atau kajian mereka...

Ahli Parlimen juga mesti melatih diri mereka bukan sahaja berceramah tetapi lagi penting menjawab soalan yang dikemukakan rakyat...Ini akan menajamkan lagi penghayatan dan kefahaman sesuatu isu...menjadikannya seorang wakil rakyat yang lebih baik...

Tak cukup hebohkan salahlaku kerajaan tetapi perlu juga mempunyai cadangan bagus apa yang harus dilakukan untuk membetulkan keadaan serta juga 'alternatif' yang baik. Contohnya, ramai kata 'hapuskan GST' - tetapi apakah alternatif menambahkan dana kerajaan? 

Apa pendirian/pendapat wakil rakyat - tak tahu kerana mereka 'takut' buat kenyataan umum/media' ...Kenyataan Umum penting supaya rakyat tahu dengan jelas apa yang mereka menyatakan (kan...jika hanya pihak media lapurkan tak tahu sama ada dilapurkan dengan tepat atau tidak...dan kita boleh terus rujuk kenyataan umum/media untuk lihat apa sebenar yang dikatakan??) Sedih kerana kita tak tahu pendapat ramai (atau mungkin mereka tidak mempunyai pendapat) - lebih senang ikut sahaja apa kata pemimpin tak kira betul atau salah...

Adakah soalan bertulis/lisan mencukupi untuk Parlimen memantau PM dan Kabinet(MB dan Exco) - semestinya tidak? Apa yang diperlukan adalah banyakJawatankuasa Parlimen  tetap yang sentiasa memantau, menyiasat aduan/isu, dll...Kini ada masalah, Parlimen tubuh PAC(Public Accountability Committee) macam untuk isu 1MDB...ini tak cukup, mesti ada jawatankuasa kekal, di mana rakyat pun boleh mengadu...yang akan menjalankan 'inquiry' secara terbuka..Di setengah negara, prosiding 'inquiry' adalah 'live' dalam TV supaya rakyat boleh juga lihat...

PARLIMEN - kerajaan UMNO-BN mungkin boleh dipersalahkan kerana tidak ada Jawatankuasa memantau sedemikian - Apakah alasan untuk Kelantan, Pulau Pinang dan Selangor?

Apakah komitmen pembangkang untuk menubuhkan lebih banyak 'select committee' atau 'Jawatankuasa' di Parlimen (dan Dewan Undangan Negeri) yang akan sentiasa memantau dan memastikan semua aspek kerajaan sentiasa scara aktif dipantau oleh Parlimen/DUN? 

1MDB - kini semua melihat kepada isu ini ...yang sedihnya Malaysia dan 1MDB sendiri nampaknya berpendirian bahawa tidak ada apa-apa 'kleptocracy' atau kesalahan yang berlaku dalam 1MDB, syarikat berkaitan serta 'dana' 1MDB? Tetapi apa yang berlaku di luar negara di banyak negara menyatakan sebaliknya...

Baru ini Bank Negara pun menyatakan bahawa badan dan institusi kewangan berkaitan dengan kes 1MDB telah didenda kerana melakukan salahlaku -- tetapi puas saya mencari, tak ada pun butiran mengenai apakah salahlaku tersebut. Siapakah badan, institusi kewangan dan syarikat ini yang telah melakukan kesalahan(apa kesalahan), dan apakah denda yang dikenakan? Rakyat berhak mengetahui...

Denda telah dibayar - ini biasanya boleh dikatakan pengakuan oleh mereka yang bersalah...Hakikat ini juga bercanggah dengan pendirian kerajaan dan 1MDB... Bagaimana dengan individu yang melakukan kesalahan ini? Adakah mereka akan dituduh atau 'dibuang kerja' atau tak ada apa-apa ...? Banyak soalan tetapi Najib pun tak banyak memberikan jawapan kepada rakyat...

“So, we could issue letters of administrative compound to relevant bodies and financial institutions breaching Bank Negara’s regulations in the 1MDB case. I would say the fines were probably the highest in history,” she[former Bank Negara governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz] told the Chinese vernacular daily, explaining how the whole matter was settled with the fine being paid.- FMT News, 24/6/2017
Ketua Audit negara keluarkan lapuran mengenai 1MDB - tetapi itu pun masih dirahsiakan daripada rakyat...

JUSTERU, sikap dan cara lama kena diketepikan....Keyakinan bahawa PM(atau MB/KT) dan Cabinet(Exco) akan melakukan kerja dengan amanah dan betul demi kepentingan rakyat sudah kurang ...kini ada alegasi 'kleptocracy', rasuah, pelupusan aset/wang rakyat secara salah, dll...kita perlukan WAKIL RAKYAT berkualiti yang ada kemampuan memantau, menyiasat dan menghebohkan dakwaaan atau salahlaku...kita perlukan Jawatankuasa Parlimen tetap(di wakili Ahli Parlimen pembangkang dan 'Backbencher' kerajaan) yang akan sentiasa kerja memastikan tak ada apa-apa salah laku berlaku....

TRANSPARENSI juga sangat diperlukan khususnya daripada mereka yang ada kuasa 'Eksekutif', iaitu Perdana Menteri/Menteri Besar/Ketua Menteri dan semua ahli Kabinet/Exco mereka....'Pengisytiharan Harta dan Kepentingan' - untuk memberi keyakinan kepada rakyat tak ada 'kleptocracy' - iaitu mereka tidak gunakan kuasa mereka untuk memperkayakan diri sendiri atau keluarga/kawan... Di Selangor, hanya tinggal Azmin Ali dan Elizabeth Wong yang nampaknya masih belum membuat pengisytiharan harta...Mengenai isu ini, pengisytiharan harta mesti dibuat bila mereka mula-mula jadi PM/MB/Exco...semua pendapatan semasa mesti senaraikan....dan seterusnya setiap tahun sekali selepas itu supaya semua rakyat boleh pastikan bahawa mereka tidak menambahkan harta/kepentingan/dan dana secara salah...melalui kleptocracy, rasuah,...dll. Sekali isytihar tak guna sangat ...Selangor pun hanya sekali pengisytiharan sahaja - sukarlah kalau begini...bagaimana kita mengetahui sama ada wang/harta/dll telah diambil secara bersalah semasa berkuasa...

Yang amat menyedihkan adalah ramai wakil rakyat hanya menumpukan perhatian mahu kekalkan kerusi - tugas utama 'check and balance' eksekutif nampak macam dipinggirkan? Apakah perubahan perlu untuk menjadikan Parlimen lebih efektif???

Jika parti menang PRU sahaja ...tetapi ikut kembali cara UMNO-BN, apa gunanya kerana rakyat yang terus jadi mangsa...Program khusus yang akan dilakukan bila menang perlu sangat dikemukakan sekarang ...

Adakah POTA, POCA dan semua Akta membenarkan tahanan tanpa bicara akan dimansuhkan dalam 100 hari dan semua yang ditahan atau disekat segera dibebaskan...Jika ada bukti , polis boleh tangkap dan dakwa di Mahkamah...kalau tidak, bebaskan saja...Adakah sistem pendidikan akan diubah? Adakah hak pendidikan percuma diberikan kepada semua di sekolah kerajaan sampai ke Universiti tempatan? Adakah sistem 'contractor for labour' dan kontrak kerja jangka tetap akan dimansuhkan dan semua pekerja akan dijadikan pekerja tetap di tempat kerja mereka? Adakah parti pembangkang atau gabungan parti pembangkang ada persetujuan mengenai perkara ini...atau habis PRU, baru  akan bincang isu ini? Adakah pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan akan diadakan di semua tempat dalam masa 100 hari? Adakah pilihanraya ketua kampung/taman/kampung baru akan segera diadakan, dan akan mengantikan JKKKK, dsb lantikan kerajaan yang kini wujud? Adakah hukuman gantung akan dimansuhkan? 

Adakah wakil rakyat kini, atau bakal wakil rakyat ada kebolehan dan initiatif berbuat ini - atau budaya sama akan diteruskan?

Parlimen 'berkualiti' memerlukan wakil rakyat 'berkualiti' yang mementingkan rakyat dan negara - bukan yang hanya mahu mendapat faedah dan kekayaan bagi diri sendiri...?
 



Zeti says Bank Negara powerless to act against 1MDB

FMT Reporters
 | June 24, 2017

1MDB probe was one of the toughest moments during her 16-year tenure as governor of central bank, says Zeti Akhtar Aziz.

Zeti-Akhtar-1mdb

PETALING JAYA: Bank Negara Malaysia was powerless to take further action than just some fines to “relevant bodies and financial institutions” over breach of regulations in relation to the 1MDB case.

This was the admission by former Bank Negara governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz, who added that the handling of the 1MDB case was one of her toughest moments in office, Sin Chew Daily reported.

“Although outsiders had very high expectations from Bank Negara, nevertheless, it did not have the power to prosecute.

“Bank Negara has the most comprehensive laws, including the Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 and Financial Services Act 2013 to preserve the integrity, stability and healthy functioning of the financial system.

“So, we could issue letters of administrative compound to relevant bodies and financial institutions breaching Bank Negara’s regulations in the 1MDB case. I would say the fines were probably the highest in history,” she told the Chinese vernacular daily, explaining how the whole matter was settled with the fine being paid.

She added that the primary objective of BNM in dealing with the 1MDB case was to ensure the integrity of the country’s financial system.

In March last year, BNM said it would initiate “appropriate action” against 1MDB for failing to produce evidence it had used the allocated US$1.83 billion for debt management and restructuring exercises overseas. 1MDB had initially cited these two reasons when asked why the money had not been repatriated to Malaysian shores.

BNM then fined 1MDB on April 28, giving the state-owned investment fund a May 30 deadline to settle the fine. 1MDB paid the fine on May 25, and with that, new BNM governor Muhammad Ibrahim said the central bank’s investigations into 1MDB had concluded.

The fine was one of the last actions by Zeti before she retired on April 30 last year, with deputy governor Muhammad Ibrahim taking over the next day.- FMT News, 24/6/2017

Draconian provisions in Immigration Act must be repealed(Malaysiakini)

$
0
0

For the full statement, and the related reports - MADPET - Malaysia Must Respect Right To Travel Outside The Country – No Last Minute Denial Of Right Without Expressed Reasons, The Right To Be Heard And/Or Judicial Review

Draconian provisions in Immigration Act must be repealed

    Published     Updated
Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) is disappointed with the Court of Appeal’s decision, as reported in the media, that suggests that Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua has no right to be heard and that the Immigration Department director-general is not required to give any reason for imposing such a ban.

The fact that any Malaysian could at any time be barred from leaving the country, without knowing why, and without even being accorded the right to challenge the action of the Immigration Department in court is certainly unacceptable and most unjust.

Justice Idrus Harun, who delivered the unanimous decision of the court, said Article 5 of the Federal Constitution on the right to liberty excluded the right to travel abroad.

He said Pua, under Article 5 and the Immigration Act, had no right to be heard and the Immigration director-general had no duty to give reason to impose the travel ban. The quorum of the Court of Appeal was Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Kamardin Hashim and Idrus.

Section 59 of the Immigration Act 1959/63 states that "no person and no member of a class of persons shall be given an opportunity of being heard before the Minister or the director-general, or in the case of an East Malaysian state, the state authority, makes any order against him in respect of any matter under this Act or any subsidiary legislation made under this Act".

It is so wrong for a person, who had expended monies and effort, to be suddenly barred from travel at the international airport.

Prior notice of a ‘travel ban’ is definitely more just, and accords the victim the right and opportunity to challenge the validity of such ban.

The state of affairs suggests that Malaysians may consider themselves "detained" within Malaysia for the director-general of immigration can at any time "secretly" decide that they be not be allowed to travel out of Malaysia.

Worse still, the victim of the travel ban seems to also not have a right to know the reason why the ban was imposed.

The earlier High Court judgment in Pua’s case, stated, amongst others, "… The above evidence also shows that the director-general of immigration has given his reasons even though he is not required to do so under the Immigration Act".

This goes contrary to norm in the administration of justice, where even the arresting or investigating authority is required to explain the reasons for any such arrest or investigations to persons affected.

Rights and liberties should never be denied without giving reasons to victims.

Without the right to know the reasons, for the denial of the ability to leave Malaysia (and possibly also the right to enter the country), any victim would be extremely prejudiced and subjected to serious injustice.

Without knowing, he/she could also not correct the possible mistakes, lies or false facts upon which the director-general of immigration may have wrongly relied on when he decided on such travel bans.

The denial of the opportunity to be heard even before the director-general or the minister makes it all the more unjust.

Section 59 and other sections that deny such rights must be repealed, and the right to know the reason for the imposition of restrictions and/or travel ban, and the right to be heard must be guaranteed in law.

Judicial review to prevent abuses

Judicial review is the power given to courts and judges to review executive action to determine that it is just and in accordance to the law.

It is a necessary check and balance in any democracy. It is wrong to have laws that enable the arbitrary unchecked exercise of power by the executive, be it the prime minister, ministers, police, the director-general of immigration or any other government department.

Denial of the right to judicial review of the reasons for the restrictions and/or travel ban is unjust.

Section 59A of the Act states, "(1) There shall be no judicial review in any court of any act done or any decision made by the minister or the director-general, or in the case of an East Malaysian state, the state authority, under this Act except in regard to any question relating to compliance with any procedural requirement of this Act or the regulations governing that act or decision".

It is the reasons for the imposition of bans/restrictions that need to be reviewed by court – not simply whether the procedure was followed.

This exclusion of the right of the victim to ask the court to review the reasons for the detention, and in this case, travel bans imposed on him/her, makes the Immigration Act similar to other draconian detention without trial laws like the Prevention of Crime Act 1959(Poca) and Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (Pota).

The Immigration Act seems worse since there is not even the obligation to inform the person prevented from leaving the country the reasons for the said "ban".

Travel bans should only be imposed by the courts

It must not be forgotten that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

A person being investigated is merely a suspect, and the fact that one is being investigated will really not be known to many unless, they have previously been arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime, or have been called in to give a statement in connection with an investigation that one may have committed some crime.

Note witnesses are also called in for purpose of investigation, and here they can never be considered suspects.

Restrictions of movement out of the country can generally only be imposed after one is charged with a crime, and is released on bail, where the court may, in exceptional cases, impose a "travel ban" preventing the accused from leaving Malaysia.

For suspects and potential witnesses, such powers should never be in the hand of the police, Immigration Department or government, but only the courts.

The law requires that even a suspect arrested, cannot be detained longer than 24 hours without a magistrate’s remand order.

It is absurd that the power to impose travel bans should rest solely in the hands of the Immigration Department – and not the courts.

Without the possibility of judicial intervention, the risk of abuse of power is unchecked.

In this case, however, there were no such prior restrictions imposed by the police and/or the courts.
Pua was allegedly suddenly prevented from leaving the country at the KL International Airport 2 on July 2, 2015.

Individuals subjected to "travel bans" should be notified immediately when they are being subjected to such restrictions – to not do so, and suddenly stop them after they had made plans and expended monies, at the airport or exit points is wrong and unjust.

It suggests that the Immigration authority may have had a wrong motive of causing additional suffering on the victim – prior notification would have prevented such injustice and personal losses.

Prior notice would also accord the right of the victim to challenge any such orders, restrictions and bans, and no reasonable person would have expended monies and energy planning trips if they knew there was a travel ban.

I suspect that Pua was not compensated for even the monies that he had spend purchasing his flight tickets and for other expenses already spent for that trip.

It may be a good idea that the Immigration Department at their website, also place lists of persons who are prevented from travelling out of the country.

Judges must act without fear to uphold justice

In Malaysia, a parliamentary democracy, we have three branches of government – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary is to ensure that any one branch of government, especially, the executive does not abuse its powers and do injustice.

Judicial review is the process that allows a person aggrieved by a decision of the executive to be able to take the matter to the courts, who will then decide whether what was done was just and right.

Given Malaysian parliamentary culture, whereby the ruling party backbenchers, do not seem to oppose or disagree with the executive, which is led by the prime minister/menteri besar/chief minister, who also happens to be the party leader, the role of judiciary to be a check and balance is of becomes all the more important.

It is sad that, in the past, Parliament, possibly under the influence of the executive, has passed laws that attempt to restrict the powers judiciary, thus weakening their ability to be a necessary and effective check and balance.

Thus, it falls upon judges in Malaysia to bravely uphold the cause of justice and the rule of law without fear or favour.

Judges in Malaysia risk the possibility of being transferred or not being promoted or confirmed when they are still judicial commissioners, but that is a risk that they must all face in the interest of justice and human rights.

Bad laws inconsistent with justice, human rights and the rule of law should never be allowed to hinder the upholding of justice.

Therefore Madpet,

Calls for the immediate repeal of laws and/or provisions of law like Section 59 and 59A of the Immigration Act that attempts to exclude judicial review and the right to be heard;

Calls for the immediate revocation of all travel bans and/or restrictions imposed by the police, Immigration Department and/or ministers, which are not imposed by courts and judges after according the intended victim the right to be heard.

Call for the Malaysian government, to immediately compensate Pua and all other victims who had expended monies, by reason of the failure of prior notification of such travel bans.

Calls on Malaysian judges and the Judiciary to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour.

Calls on Malaysia to respect justice and human rights, and ensure that all branches of government that play an essential role of check and balance in a democracy are not impeded by law and/or other actions.- Malaysiakini, 6/7/2017

SINGAPORE, DO NOT EXECUTE MALAYSIAN PRABAGARAN ON 14 JULY 2017

$
0
0

Media Statement – 11/7/2017

SINGAPORE, DO NOT EXECUTE MALAYSIAN S. PRABAGARAN ON 14 JULY 2017
-          Respect Malaysian Courts and Malaysia -

MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) calls on Singapore to stop its plans to execute Malaysian citizen Prabagaran Srivijayan on Friday, 14 July 2017.Prabagaran was convicted and sentence to death for the offence of drug trafficking by Singapore.  There are concerns that he was not accorded a fair trial.
*Looks real but Not managed to verify authenticity at time of posting

There is an application now pending at the Malaysian Court of Appeal to refer Singapore to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for breach of the right to a fair trial. Last March, the Malaysian High Court denied the application for leave for a judicial review to compel Malaysia to intervene by referring Singapore to the ICJ. That means that this judicial review is not even been heard on the merits. Justice demands that Prabagaran not be executed until this court application be heard.

Singapore will not lose anything by simply postponing the execution, better still commuting the death penalty to imprisonment.

As such, for Singapore to execute this Malaysian at this stage, it may be said to be an act of disrespecting not only the Malaysian courts and Malaysia, but also be an affront to justice to execute before the convicted is able fully exercise all available legal options. To now continue with a speedy execution, will also raise the presumption that Singapore may be fearful that the International Court of Justice may indeed confirm that Prabakaran was denied a fair trial.

Whilst Singapore may have amended its laws, making it a possibility that persons convicted for drug trafficking not to be sentenced to death, there are serious flaws in this new current law.

To escape the death penalty, the accussed needs to satisfy 2 conditions - (1) Must get a Certificate Of Substantive Assistance from the Attorney General's Chambers, and (2) prove on a balance of probabilities, that his involvement in the offence under section 5(1) or 7 was restricted — to transporting, sending or delivering a controlled drug; to offering to transport, send or deliver a controlled drug; to doing or offering to do any act preparatory to or for the purpose of his transporting, sending or delivering a controlled drug; or to any combination of activities above;

Thus, without the Attorney General Chamber’s certificate, the judges in Singapore cannot exercise their discretion when it comes to sentencing, and will have no choice but to sentence the  convicted to death.

It should be only court who determines whether ‘substantive assistance’ was given or not, certainly not the Attorney General’s Chambers. Some persons may not have any other information, and it is unjust conclude since they had not provided ‘substantive assistance’, they will die. Judges will certainly be more independent in determining whether the required or possible ‘substantive assistance’ was given or not – certainly not the Attorney General’s Chambers, who is also the prosecuting authority.

Hopefully, Malaysia will not make a similar mistake when it abolishes the death penalty, and would always ensure that only judges will be vested with the discretion when it comes to sentencing.

To compound matters, the denial of access of lawyers in the Malaysian court actions to Prabagaran is unacceptable and against human rights.(Malay Mail, 7/7/2017)

MADPET calls on Singapore to immediately postpone the planned execution of Prabakaran until he has fully exhausted all his legal options in Malaysia and Singapore, and maybe even the International Court of Justice(ICJ);


MADPET also call for Prabakaran’s death penalty to be commuted;

MADPET calls on Singapore to amend its laws, returning discretion to judges when it comes to sentencing. The provision in law about the requirement of ‘Certificate of Substantive Assistance’ by the Attorney General’s Chambers, before the convicted becomes entitled to a sentence other than death penalty must be repealed.

MADPET also urges the Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and the Malaysian government to speedily act to save the life of this Malaysian. Malaysia should also withdraw its objections, and allow the judicial review to be heard on its merits by the court.

MADPET also calls on both Singapore and Malaysia to abolish the death penalty, and immediately impose a moratorium on all executions.

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

[The abovementioned statement was carried by Malaysiakini - The execution of a M’sian by S’pore must be stopped(Malaysiakini)]


Lawyers complain Malaysian set for Singapore hanging despite lawsuit

Friday July 7, 2017
03:24 PM GMT+8


KUALA LUMPUR, July 7 — Malaysian citizen S. Prabagaran’s execution in Singapore has been scheduled next Friday despite his court application here to refer Singapore to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), his lawyers said today.

N. Surendran and Latheefa Koya called for a halt to the 29-year-old man’s scheduled execution, saying that his trial and conviction for drug trafficking were tainted by a breach of his right to a fair trial.

“Why is Singapore rushing the execution before the court proceedings in Malaysia are concluded?

“To carry out the execution despite the pending proceedings in Malaysia would be in breach of international law and would disregard Prabagaran's constitutional rights,” they said in a statement.

The lawyers pointed out that there was an application pending at the Malaysian Court of Appeal to refer Singapore to the ICJ for breach of the right to a fair trial, after their client failed last March to obtain leave from the High Court here for a judicial review to compel Malaysia to intervene by referring Singapore to the ICJ.

Surendran and Latheefa also said Singapore had denied their application to interview and to take instructions from their client in Changi prison.

“We call upon the government of Singapore to halt the execution, and allow us immediate access to Prabagaran as his duly appointed lawyers acting in the pending Malaysian proceedings,” they said. - Malay Mail, 7/7/2017

MIC, BN, UMNO, PAS, PH - kenapa tak buat apa-apa menyelamatkan nyawa Warga Malaysia keturunan India?

$
0
0
Rakyat Malaysia Prabagaran Srivijayan akan digantung pada hari Jumaat(14 July 2017) di mana tuduhannay adalah 'drug trafficking'...tetapi sedih sekali MIC(Malaysian Indian Congress) atau Barisan Nasional, Pakatan 'Harapan', PAS atau parti lain nampaknya tak prihatin - tak mahu ambil tindakan menyelamatkan seorang rakyat Malaysia daripada digantung sampai mati di Singapura...



Umi Azlim Mohamad Lazim - jangan lupa usaha kerajaan Malaysia, parti UMNO dan PAS yang berusaha cuba menyelamatkan anak muda ini daripada dibunuh oleh negara Cina - kesalahan 'drug trafficking'

Ong Kim Fatt, seorang lagi warga negara Malaysia - kesalahan 'drug trafficking' - jangan kita lupa usaha kerajaan Malaysia pada masa itu - usaha parti MCA -  Deputy Minister Datuk Lee Chee Leong...Datuk Michael Chong...MCA Bukit Bintang chairman Datuk Dr Lee Chong Men..

Kini, mana dia MIC ...mana dia Perdana Menteri Najib yang kononnya sangat prihatin tentang nasib warganegara Malaysia keturunan India??

Ingat, banya pemimpin negara dari BN dan pembangkang nampaknya sudah setuju bahawa seorang yang di tangkap untuk 'drug trafficking' secara wajar tidak harus dihukum mati???

Yang melakukan kesalahan, perlu dihukum ....ini semua setuju. Apa yang dibantah adalah hukuman mati - tidak perlu, dan lebih wajar hukuman penjara untuk tempuh panjang...

Mengapa ramai orang Islam setuju bahawa hukuman mati di Malaysia dan Singapura harus dimansuhkan? Kerana ini hukuman yang dikenakan berasaskan undang-undang 'sivil' bukan undang-undang Islam, yang ada juga prosidurnya sendiri dan juga syarat mengenai 'keterangan perlu' untuk mendapati seseorang wajar dihukum mati yang lebih tinggi...

Pengedaran dadah, secara tambahan bukan satu kesalahan khusus dalam Islam yang patut dihukum mati...

Justeru, mengapa UMNO, PAS dan/atau parti Amanah tak bersuara - menyatakan bantahan mereka kepada hukuman mati Prabagaran? Adakah ini kerana dia itu 'bukan Islam'? Atau adakah kerana kebanyakkan parti politik ini sebenarnya tak prihatin masalah 'orang kecil' di Malaysia - hanya mahukan kuasa politik? 

Apa yang diperlukan bukan banyak - hanya satu kenyataan media...atau surat meminta jangan gantung ...atau mendesak kerajaan Malaysia menyelamatkan nyawa seorang rakyat Malaysia...Demikian juga banyak isu rakyat setempat ...tak diberi perhatian ...sedih sekali.

Rayuan jangan gantung mati seorang warganegara adalah sesuatu perkara minima yang kerajaan Malaysia harus lakukan...

 

Lihat post berkaitan:- 

SINGAPORE, DO NOT EXECUTE MALAYSIAN PRABAGARAN ON 14 JULY 2017


 
Umi Azlim Mohamad Lazim, 24, a university science graduate from a poor Malay family of rice farmers, admitted to having 2.9 kilograms in her luggage when she was arrested at Shantou airport last January....The judge rejected her explanation and sentenced her to death,...


 The case is fast-developing into an emotive national issue. Politicians have set aside their differences to halt Lazim's execution. The ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and its rival the Islamic fundamentalist Pan Malaysian Islamic Party are even vying in their efforts.

Both are collecting money for the family, working to arrange family visits and promising they will save Lazim from execution.-
Vui Kong, Kim Fatt, Umi Azlim - Now Georgia is asking that life of its citizens be spared



Ong Kim Fatt

23 April 2009 - Kuala Lumpur (Star)

M’sia appeals for clemency for man on China death row

The Foreign Ministry has already sent a clemency appeal for Malaysian Ong Kim Fatt who is on death row in China for drug trafficking, said its Deputy Minister Datuk Lee Chee Leong.

Ong is the first one to face the death sentence for a drug offence in China since World War II.

“We have sent a letter to our Chinese counterpart appealing for Ong’s death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment,” Lee said in a press conference at Wisma MCA on Thursday.-Vui Kong, Kim Fatt, Umi Azlim - Now Georgia is asking that life of its citizens be spare

The Malay-sian Government has sent an appeal to its Chinese counterpart for Ong Kim Fatt, who is on death row in China, to be granted clemency, Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk Lee Chee Leong said.
“We have sent a letter to the Chinese government appealing for Ong’s death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment,” Lee told a press conference at Wisma MCA yesterday.

He said the Malaysian Embassy there had also been appealing to the Chinese court to reconsider Ong’s death sentence, the first such sentence for a drug offence in China since World War Two.

“We want to remind all Malaysians to respect and abide by the laws of the countries they are travelling to,” he said.

Ong, 44, was found guilty of trafficking 13 packets of heroin weighing 1,480gm at the Xiamen Gao Qi International Airport on Sept 19, 2007.
Earlier last week, MCA Public Services and Complaints Department head Datuk Michael Chong sought the Foreign Ministry’s help to obtain clemency for Ong, who was supposed to face the firing squad in February.

However, the execution was postponed to April 29 to allow him to fulfil his last wish of meeting his siblings.MCA Bukit Bintang chairman Datuk Dr Lee Chong Meng, who was also at the press conference, said he would accompany Ong’s brothers, Hock Hooi, 38, and Hock Kiang, 41, to China on April 27 to meet Ong and hopefully get his clemency appeal approved....-
- Star, 24/4/2009, Govt asks that death row man be given life sentence instead 

EU,Malaysian Bar and FIDH urge Singapore to not hang Malaysian Prabagaran

$
0
0

EU Local Statement on Mr Prabagaran Srivijayan death penalty case in Singapore

The European Union Delegation to Singapore issues the following statement in agreement with the EU Heads of Mission, and the Head of Mission of Norway:

The European Union (EU) calls on the Singapore authorities to halt the execution of Mr. Prabagaran Srivijayan, to commute his sentence to a non-capital sentence and to adopt a moratorium on all executions.

The EU holds a principled position against the death penalty and is opposed to the use of capital punishment under any circumstances. 

No compelling evidence exists to show that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime

Furthermore, any errors - inevitable in any legal system - are irreversible

The EU will continue in its pursuit on the abolition of the death penalty worldwide. - Delegation of the European Union to Singapore Website

 
Uphold the Right to Life and Stay the Execution of Prabagaran Srivijayan
 
The Malaysian Bar is extremely troubled over the reports of the imminent execution of Prabagaran Srivijayan in Singapore.  The 29-year old Malaysian citizen was convicted of drug trafficking, and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty on 22 July 2012. His family was recently informed by the authorities that he is scheduled to be hanged to death at Changi Prison Complex on 14 July 2017.
 
The Malaysian Bar appeals to the Government of Singapore for clemency, to stay the execution of Prabagaran Srivijayan and commute his death sentence to one of life imprisonment
 
The Malaysian Bar’s position is that every individual has an inherent right to life.  The right to life is absolute, universal and inalienable, and must be held inviolate, regardless of the crime that may have been committed. 
 
We recall the immortal words of the late Justice Ishmael Mohamed, the former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa:
 
Death is different.  The dignity of all of us, in a caring civilisation, must not be compromised by the act of repeating, albeit for a wholly different objective, what we find to be so repugnant in the conduct of the offender in the first place.
 
 
George Varughese
President
Malaysian Bar 
 
12 July 2017
 
FIDH - International Federation for Human Rights Press release 
 

Singapore: Halt the execution of Prabagaran Srivijayan 

 
Paris, 12 July 2017: Singaporean authorities must halt the execution of Prabagaran Srivijayan, FIDH said today. Prabagaran, a 29-year-old Malaysian national, is scheduled to be executed by hanging on 14 July 2017. 
 
“Singapore must immediately halt the execution of Prabagaran Srivijayan and put an end to all executions in the country. It is disturbing that Singapore continues to impose mandatory death sentences for drug-related crimes, which do not meet the threshold of the ‘most serious crimes’ under international law,” said FIDH President Dimitris Christopoulos. 
 
On 22 September 2014, Singapore’s High Court imposed a mandatory death sentence on Prabagaran for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, after he was found in possession of 22.24 grams of heroin on 12 April 2012.
 
On 2 October 2015, the Court of Appeal dismissed Prabagaran’s appeal against his conviction and sentence. Singaporean authorities have never allowed Prabagaran’s attorneys, N Surendran and Latheefa Koya, who were hired by Prabagaran’s mother in January 2017, to visit him in Changi Prison.
 
Authorities did not provide any reason for this denial. The denial of Prabagaran to meet with his legal representatives falls short of international fair trial standards.
 
According to General Comment No. 32 concerning Article 14(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), “in cases involving capital punishment, it is axiomatic that the accused must be effectively assisted by a lawyer at all stages of the proceedings.” 
 
Prabagaran has spent more than five years in prison, including almost three years awaiting execution. 
 
International law reserves the death penalty for the “most serious crimes,” a threshold that international jurisprudence has repeatedly stated drug-related offenses do not meet. 
 
If Prabagaran is hanged, it will be the fourth documented execution in Singapore since the beginning of the year. On 17 March 2017, Singaporean authorities executed an unknown individual. On 21 April 2017 and 19 May 2017, Singaporean authorities executed Jeffrey Marquez Abineno, 52, and Muhammad Ridzuan, 31, respectively, for drug trafficking.
 
While the government publishes annual statistics on the total number of executions, it consistently fails to make public announcements concerning upcoming hangings and does not reveal the number of prisoners on death row. 
 
FIDH, a member of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP), reiterates its strong opposition to the death penalty for all crimes and in all circumstances.
 
FIDH calls on the Singaporean government to reinstate the moratorium on executions that was lifted in July 2014, and to make progress towards the abolition of capital punishment for all crimes.
 
 

Prabagaran executed on 14 July 2017...This must not stop our quest for JUSTICE?

$
0
0
Despite calls from the European Union, Malaysian Bar, MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture), Amnesty International, FIDH and many others, Singapore still proceeded to execute Prabagaran this morning.In the Malaysian courts, there is a pending application to compel Malaysia to take Singapore to the International Court of Justice(ICJ) on the basis that there have been a denial of the right to fair trial.

SINGAPORE, DO NOT EXECUTE MALAYSIAN PRABAGARAN ON 14 JULY 2017

EU,Malaysian Bar and FIDH urge Singapore to not hang Malaysian Prabagaran



He was arrested after drugs were found in a car he was driving. Prabagaran 'maintained his innocence, claiming that he did not own the car he drove and was not aware of the drugs being in it.'

Did the prosecution prove that the drugs belonged to Prabagaran? No, like Malaysia, I believe Singapore too, relies on that 'unjust' legal presumption - i.e. 

If the drugs are found in your possession, it is presumed to be yours UNTIL you can prove otherwise. Well, imagine this. Someone, without your knowledge, puts some drugs in your car. You drive the car, the police stops your car and finds the drugs...How can you PROVE that the drugs were not yours? You can say so...but where is the proof...?? That is why, for 'drugs', the burden of proving that the drug is yours, and you know that it was drugs, should always be on the prosecution? ..

Worse still is the other legal presumption, i.e. if the drugs are above a certain quantity, you are presumed to be a 'drug trafficker', which if convicted, will be sentenced to death. If it was of a lesser quantity, then you may end up being convicted for 'possession', and this carries a lesser punishment...

That is why, as in other crimes, it must always be the duty of the prosecution to prove that drugs found in your possession belongs to you (or alternatively that you knew that you had drugs)...and that the drugs were being transported by you, or being sold by you or being ....that equates to trafficking.

Singapore new laws - before a judge can consider a sentence other than the death penalty, the accused/convicted need to get a 'Certificate of Substantive Assistance' from the Attorney General's Chambers (not the public prosecutors comes from this office). 

What is 'subsstantive assistance'? Well, if Prabagaran said he did not know there was drugs in the car he was driving - what 'substantive assistance' could he provide. Maybe, he could tell the prosecution where he got the car from ...full stop, or maybe who gave him the car. Who was the 'owner' of the car - well, that is very easily found out. One can only give information that one possesses - so, did he give 'substantive assistance'. Who should decide? Rightly, it must always be the judge - not the AG Chambers?

Maybe in some other case in Singapore, one of the convicted may apply for Judicial Review of the AG's chambers to issue that required 'Certificate of Substantive Assistance' - then maybe the court will be able to determine whether the AG Chambers was right or not in not issuing the said Certificate...That would be something interesting to look forward...but are Singapore Judges independent?

EXECUTION - well, maybe some believe that an 'execution' will end the efforts to look into the case - to see if miscarriage was carried out. Well, we must not stop ... the fact that Prabagaran is executed should not end our looking to see whether he really was a victim of injustice or not...

In this case, Malaysia and Malaysian political parties also come away in a 'bad light' - When comparing past efforts by the government of Malaysia in other cases like the case of Umi Azlim Mohamad Lazim and Ong Kim Fatt - one wonders why Malaysia failed to appeal for the sentence to be commutted in the case of Prabagaran, and maybe even Kho Ja Bing( a Sarawakian)? So much plea for Anwar's release, but almost 'silence' when it comes to Prabagaran...and maybe other Malaysians wrongly incarcerated. Do these political parties act only when party members/leaders are the victims - but are 'not bothered' when it is other Malaysians?
 






Prabagaran executed for drug trafficking

 | July 14, 2017
He was executed early this morning at Changi Prison.
S-Prabagaran

PETALING JAYA: S Prabagaran, a Malaysian, who was convicted for drug trafficking in Singapore, was hanged early this morning after the country’s Court of Appeal dismissed his application to stay his execution.
Channel NewsAsia reported that Prabagaran was executed at Changi Prison.

Prabagaran was convicted in 2012 after 22.24g of diamorphine, a pure form of heroin, was found in his car at the Singaporean immigration checkpoint as he tried to enter the country.

He maintained his innocence, claiming that he did not own the car he drove and was not aware of the drugs being in it.

Earlier this year, he turned to the Malaysian courts to compel the government to start legal proceedings against Singapore before an international tribunal for denying him a fair trial.

On March 24, Prabagaran failed to obtain leave at the Kuala Lumpur High Court to compel the Malaysian government to start proceedings against Singapore.

Yesterday, lawyer N Surendran said Singapore’s Court of Appeal had dismissed Prabagaran’s application to stay his execution pending his case in the Malaysian courts.

He told FMT the appeals court had ruled that Singapore is a sovereign nation and that it would not wait for the outcome of proceedings in Malaysia.- FMT News, 14/7/2017

Chief Justice, even after retirement, for 3 more years? Wrong or Right?

$
0
0


Suddenly, Malaysians were informed that the current Chief Justice  and the President of the Court of Appeal, even before their retirement, were made 'additional judges' of the Federal Court sometime in March by the previous Chief Justice? - and we were all not told about this at that time. Now, we read that the term of these 2 judges have been extended by 3 years and 2 years... We are all 'shocked' because this disclosure was made now....

THE ISSUE REALLY IS ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG - not simply whether it is legal or illegal..

Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif will remain as Chief Justice for a period of three years commencing August 4 this year after his appointment as an additional judge in the Federal Court from the date and for the same period....Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin who was appointed as an additional judge for the Federal Court for a term of two years commencing from September 28, 2017 will continue to hold the position of the President of the Court of Appeal from the date and for the same period....On April 1, 2017, Md Raus, was appointed as the 14th Chief Justice of Malaysia, replacing Arifin who retired after reaching the age of 66 years and six months, on March 31, 2017, and Zulkefli had been appointed as Court of Appeal President to succeed Md Raus.
It must be pointed out that in Malaysia, the Prime Minister is the one that decides on who will be the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts and the other judges of the Federal Court, of the Court of Appeal and of the High Courts - They may be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister....Clearly, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong must act upon the advice of the Prime Minister. 


122B  Appointment of judges of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and of High Courts
(1) The Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts and (subject to Article 122c) the other judges of the Federal Court, of the Court of Appeal and of the High Courts shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers.

What is the meaning of 'acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, etc ...'? Yang di-Pertuan Agong has no choice but to act as advised.

40  Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act on advice.(Federal Constitution)
(1A) In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law, where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is to act in accordance with advice, on advice, or after considering advice, the Yang di- Pertuan Agong shall accept and act in accordance with such advice.

HOWEVER, when it comes to 'additional judge' of  the Federal Court, the Prime Minister seems to have no role or power"... the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the advice of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court..." - it looks like here it is the Chief Justice of the Federal Court only who has the power...interesting.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution contained, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the advice of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court may appoint for such purposes or for such period of time as he may specify any person who has held high judicial office in Malaysia to be an additional judge of the Federal Court:...
Then, the question then would be - "Which Chief Justice...". Reasonably, it must be the present sitting Chief Justice...

WHEN - When should this advice be tendered and the appointment be made?Reasonably, it should be done just before the judge reaches his retirement age of 66, or if an extension of 6 months had been approved by the Yang Di Pertuan Agung - it should be just before the expiration of this extension of tenure...

Talking about the 6 months extension, it seems that this is that 'any other case mentioned in this Constitution'..., where the Yang Di Pertuan Agung is free to act in his discretion. There is no provision here for him to act in accordance of anyone - Prime Minister, Chief Justice or some other. But then the words, 'may approve' - so who really applied? Or maybe, this 'may approve' really means 'may decide'?
125  Tenure of office and remuneration of judges of Federal Court.
(1) Subject to the provisions of Clauses (2) to (5), a judge of the Federal Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-six years or such later time, not being later than six months after he attains that age, as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may approve...
So, back to the question of 'additional judges' - where the power seems to vest only on the Chief Justice. Now, we here that the former Chief Justice alleges that he was the one that made that 'advice' on his last day of office - 30 March 2017. On 1 April, we had our new current Chief Justice. 

“The appointment of Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif and Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin as additional judges in the Federal Court after each of them reach the age of 66 years and six months is on the respectful suggestion and advice of the Chief Justice at the material time, Tun Arifin Zakaria to his Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on March 30, 2017 before Yang Amat Arif retired,” said the statement.
So, should the Yang Di Pertuan Agung act on the advice of a former Chief Justice on his last days, when we already have a new Chief Justice. 

If yes, then Najib Tun Razak, our Prime Minister, before dissolving Parliament and calling for the next General Elections can simply 'advice' the Yang Di Pertuan Agung to appoint many judges, and the Yang Di Pertuan Agung will do so...?  Remember that, once appointed, it is not easy to remove judges...Personally, the validity of any such 'advice' is no more after the Prime Minister or Chief Justice resigns, despite the fact that it was given before he left office...and the Yang Di Pertuan Agung is no longer bound by such advice...

Now, the current Chief Justice Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif had the power to advice the Yang Di Pertuan Agung to appoint additional judges beyond the age of retirements, and that means he too can 'extend' his own time in office. He can also extend Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin's tenure and hence the term of the office he holds. Well, that is my reading of our current Constitutional provisions.

Is it right for Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif to extend his own 'tenure' and his own term as Chief Justice of the Federal Court? Well, personally, I would say that it is wrong ...

It is right for the Chief Justice to act to extend the tenure of other judges, beyond the retirement age? Again, I would say that it is wrong - save for very exceptional circumstances - like not wanting to lose a competent good judge but event that .... 

It is wrong to extend the tenure of any any judge because it impacts on the 'independence of the judiciary', and one of the safeguards in place is'security of tenure', and there must be certainty of the last day as a judge. Note, removing a sitting judges is very very difficult

If the power to appoint additional judges(which, in fact extends tenure) to any one, be it the Chief Justice of the Federal Court (as it is) or the Prime Minister or Parliament or some other body... it will definitely have serious impact on the 'independence of the judiciary'Would judges now be 'loyal' or listening to the 'instructions' of these persons with the power to extend their tenure or 'term in office'? They may not be, and may be still independent judges - but alas what will be the 'public perception' be?

As it is, there is already problems when it comes to appointment of judges and also their transfer/promotions/even decisions on who sits on the coram of the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court for particular cases. There is just too much power given to the Prime Minister (and in some cases the Chief Justice of the Federal Court as in the case of 'additional judges') - 

In fact, I believe, that the people(rakyat Malaysia) should be involved in these decisions especially when it comes to choosing of Chief Justice of the Federal Court, President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judges of the 2 High Courts, and maybe even Court of Appeal and Federal Court Judges. Parliament should also have to give their approval. The proposed Independent Committee is also a good idea.

Security of Tenure is a key factor to safeguarding the Independence of the Judiciary 

A judge, when appointed know that his tenure is secured until his retirement age, and he cannot be easily removed by the Prime Minister or anyone. He has no worries of being sacked, even if he makes decisions in court against the Prime Minister or the State/government or powerful people. That is why there must be a fixed retirement age - 66 years now.

As such, the provision that the term may be extended for a further 6 months, after he reaches 66 years, is problematic...Not a problem if the retirement age of the Federal Court judge was made 66 years and 6 months - but when some will be given and some not based on the approval of the Yang Di Pertuan Agung, problems arise. Remember the Prime Minister do have much influence on the decision of the king.

(1) Subject to the provisions of Clauses (2) to (5), a judge of the Federal Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-six years or such later time, not being later than six months after he attains that age, as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may approve.
Now, the other problem that impacts 'security of tenure' is the appointment of 'additional judges' - so. will judges be 'friendly' or 'obedient' to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court in the hope tenure be extended? 

Look at the recent happenings - 3 years for Raus, and 2 years for Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin? Why the difference? Could it be 10 years? or 20 years? Was Raus a 'more complient' or 'more friendly' judge, compared  to Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court who advised the Yang Di Pertuan Agung? So, the possibility of extending tenure for any possible period also seems wrong?

'Short term contract Judges' - the Judicial Commissioners(JC) - this too is an affront to 'security of tenure', a safeguard to ensure independence of judges. If Judicial Commissioners are making decisions, not in favour of the powers that have a say in deciding whether these JCs will be confirmed as Judges. then maybe they may never be made Judges. JC - 'probationary judges'? Whilst many JCs may be good people who will uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour - there may be some who may be concerned about the impact of their judgement on their chances of becoming judges. This undermines the assurance required for an independent judge. Just appoint them as Judges - no more Judicial Commissioners.

Independence of the Malaysian judiciary suffered especially after the 1987-88 Judicial Crisis. Subsequent amendments to the Constitution and new laws has attempted to undermine the Judiciary, as a necessary third branch of the Judiciary serving as a check and balance against the Executive and/or the Legislature. 

Much reforms are needed, and now this 'questionable' extension of the tenure of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and the President of the Court of Appeal only may make matters worse. 

The best option, is maybe for Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif and Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin to simply resign now, oron their reaching 66 years (or 66 years and 6 month). They should best announce this right now...


(2) A judge of the Federal Court may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong...
PM Najib Razak and the current government has been plagued by many issues, including matters concerning 1MDB, etc  - one cannot help but wonder as to whether this issue, concerning the heads of the Malaysian judiciary, when the next General Elections is just round the corner, may be simply an attempt to distract Malaysians ...Maybe yes..maybe not?

It is very sad that good men like Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif and Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin may now are made into 'targets' of public attention which may result in tarnishing their good name...

Some may say, why don't we just leave it to the courts to decide - well, in this case involving the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and the President of the Court of Appeal, one wonders whether too much pressure will be on judges...and whether justice will prevail...

See below the provisions of our Federal Constitution concerning the Judiciary.. (best if you could also look at the Constitution itself, just in case there may be some inadvertent mistakes below

____

Side matter - we know when 'advised', the Yang Di Pertuan Agung must follow that advice, what about when there provision about 'consult'...The quote from a court judgment, explains this matter succinctly 

So in the matter of the appointment of judges, when the Yang di-Pertuan Agong consults the Conference of Rulers, he does not seek its "consent". He merely consults. So when the Conference of Rulers gives its advice, opinion or views, the question is, is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong bound to accept. Clearly he is not. He may consider the advice or opinion given but he is not bound by it.So in the matter of the appointment of judges, when the Yang di-Pertuan Agong consults the Conference of Rulers, he does not seek its "consent". He merely consults. So when the Conference of Rulers gives its advice, opinion or views, the question is, is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong bound to accept. Clearly he is not. He may consider the advice or opinion given but he is not bound by it.

PMO confirms Raus Sharif to stay Chief Justice for three more years


KUALA LUMPUR, July 7 ― Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif will remain as Chief Justice for a period of three years commencing August 4 this year after his appointment as an additional judge in the Federal Court from the date and for the same period.

The Prime Minister’s Office in a statement today said Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin who was appointed as an additional judge for the Federal Court for a term of two years commencing from September 28, 2017 will continue to hold the position of the President of the Court of Appeal from the date and for the same period.

The statement said the appointment of the Chief Justice and the President of Court of Appeal, who are appointees as additional judges in the Federal Court, is pursuant to Article 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

It said pursuant to Article 122B(1) of the Federal Constitution, His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, on the advice of the Prime Minister and after consultation with the Conference of Rulers convened on May 24 and 25 this year, is pleased to announce both appointments.

“The appointment of Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif and Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin as additional judges in the Federal Court after each of them reach the age of 66 years and six months is on the respectful suggestion and advice of the Chief Justice at the material time, Tun Arifin Zakaria to his Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on March 30, 2017 before Yang Amat Arif retired,” said the statement.

The statement said the proposal and advice were accepted by the yang di-Pertuan Agong in accordance with Article 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

The statement also said the above decisions and procedure were consonant with the provisions of the Federal Constitution now.
“The Malaysian Government is however contemplating tabling a proposal in the Parliament for the amendment of  Article 125 of the Federal Constitution to raise the  retirement age of Apex Court judges  to 70 years. This is consonant with the Commonwealth and international practice and jurisprudence,” said the statement.
 On April 1, 2017, Md Raus, was appointed as the 14th Chief Justice of Malaysia, replacing Arifin who retired after reaching the age of 66 years and six months, on March 31, 2017, and Zulkefli had been appointed as Court of Appeal President to succeed Md Raus.
The retirement age for judges is 66.
 As a background,  the services of Arifin as Chief Justice, Md Raus as Court of Appeal President and Zulkefli as Chief Judge of Malaya had earlier been extended for six months.
Md Raus' service in the judiciary has been extended from February 4 to August 3 this year, while Zulkefli’s  from March 28 until Sept 27 this year. ― Bernama - Malay Mail, 7/7/2017




FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS ABOUT JUDICIARY

121  Judicial power of the Federation.

(1) There shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely -
(a) one in the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Malaya as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine; and[Am. Act A1260]
(b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di- Pertuan Agong may determine;
(c)(Repealed),
and such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law and the High Courts and inferior courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law.

(1A) The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.

(1B) There shall be a court which shall be known as the Mahkamah Rayuan (Court of Appeal) and shall have its principal registry at such place as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine, and the Court of Appeal shall have the following jurisdiction, that is to say:[Am. Act A1260]
(a) jurisdiction to determine appeals from decisions of a High Court or a judge thereof (except decisions of a High Court given by a registrar or other officer of the Court and appealable under federal law to a judge of the Court); and
(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred by or under federal law.

(2) There shall be a court which shall be known as the Mahkamah Persekutuan (Federal Court) and shall have its principal registry at such place as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine, and the Federal Court shall have the following jurisdiction, that is to say:[Am. Act 1260]
(a) jurisdiction to determine appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeal, of the High Court or a judge thereof;
(b) such original or consultative jurisdiction as is specified in Articles 128 and 130; and
(c) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred by or under federal law.

(3) Subject to any limitations imposed by or under federal law, any order, decree, judgment or process of the courts referred to in Clause (1) or of any judge thereof shall (so far as its nature permits) have full force and effect according to its tenor throughout the Federation, and may be executed or enforced in any part of the Federation accordingly; and federal law may provide for courts in one part of the Federation or their officers to act in aid of courts in another part.

(4) In determining where the principal registry of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak is to be, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister, who shall consult the Chief Ministers of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the Chief Judge of the High Court.

122  Constitution of Federal Court.

(1) The Federal Court shall consist of a president of the Court (to be styled "the Chief Justice of the Federal Court"), of the President of the Court of Appeal, of the Chief Judges of the High Courts and, until the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by order otherwise provides, of * four other judges and such additional judges as may be appointed pursuant to Clause (1A).

(1A) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution contained, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the advice of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court may appoint for such purposes or for such period of time as he may specify any person who has held high judicial office in Malaysia to be an additional judge of the Federal Court:


Provided that no such additional judge shall be ineligible to hold office by reason of having attained the age of sixty-six years.[Am. Act A1239]

(2) A judge of the Court of Appeal other than the President of the Court of Appeal may sit as a judge of the Federal Court where the Chief Justice considers that the interests of justice so require, and the judge shall be nominated for the purpose (as occasion requires) by the Chief Justice.

122A  Constitution of Court of Appeal.

(1) The Court of Appeal shall consist of a chairman (to be styled the "President of the Court of Appeal") and, until the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by order otherwise provides, of ten other judges.

(2) A judge of a High Court may sit as a judge of the Court of Appeal where the President of the Court of Appeal considers that the interests of justice so require, and the judge shall be nominated for the purpose (as occasion requires) by the President of the Court of Appeal after consulting the Chief Judge of that High Court.

122AA  Constitution of the High Courts.

(1) Each of the High Courts shall consist of a Chief Judge and not less than four other judges; but the number of other judges shall not, until the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by order otherwise provides, exceed -
(a) in the High Court in Malaya, forty-seven; and
(b) in the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, ten.

(2) Any person qualified for appointment as a judge of a High Court may sit as a judge of that Court if designated for the purpose (as occasion requires) in accordance with Article 122B.

122AB  Appointment of judicial commissioner.

(1) For the despatch of business of the High Court in Malaya and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, may by order appoint to be judicial commissioner for such period or such purpose as may be specified in the order any person qualified for appointment as a judge of a High Court; and the person so appointed shall have power to perform such functions of a judge of the High Court as appear to him to require to be performed; and anything done by him when acting in accordance with his appointment shall have the same validity and effect as if done by a judge of that Court, and in respect thereof he shall have the same powers and enjoy the same immunities as if he had been a judge of that Court.

(2) The provisions of Clauses (2) and (5) of Article 124 shall apply to a judicial commissioner as they apply to a judge of a High Court.

122B  Appointment of judges of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and of High Courts.

(1) The Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts and (subject to Article 122c) the other judges of the Federal Court, of the Court of Appeal and of the High Courts shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers.

(2) Before tendering his advice as to the appointment under Clause (1) of a judge other than the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the Prime Minister shall consult the Chief Justice.

(3) Before tendering his advice as to the appointment under Clause (1) of the Chief Judge of a High Court, the Prime Minister shall consult the Chief Judge of each of the High Courts and, if the appointment is to the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, the Chief Minister of each of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

(4) Before tendering his advice as to the appointment under Clause (1) of a judge other than the Chief Justice, President or a Chief Judge, the Prime Minister shall consult, if the appointment is to the Federal Court, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, if the appointment is to the Court of Appeal, the President of the Court of Appeal and, if the appointment is to one of the High Courts, the Chief Judge of that Court.

(5) This Article shall apply to the designation of a person to sit as judge of a High Court under Clause (2) of Article 122AA as it applies to the appointment of a judge of that court other than the Chief Judge
.
(6) Notwithstanding the dates of their respective appointments as judges of the Federal Court, of the Court of Appeal or of the High Courts, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister given after consulting the Chief Justice, may determine the order of precedence of the judges among themselves.

122C  Transfer of judge of one High Court to another.

Article 122B shall not apply to the transfer to a High Court, otherwise than as Chief Judge, of a judge of another High Court other than the Chief Judge; and such a transfer may be made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, after consulting the Chief Judges of the two High Courts.

123  Qualifications of judges of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and of High Courts.

A person is qualified for appointment under Article 122B as a judge of the Federal Court, as a judge of the Court of Appeal or as a judge of any of the High Courts if -

(a) he is a citizen; and
(b) for the ten years preceding his appointment he has been an advocate of those courts or any of them or a member of the judicial and legal service of the Federation or of the legal service of a State, or sometimes one and sometimes another.

124  Oath of office of judges.

(1) The Chief Justice of the Federal Court shall before exercising the functions of his office take and subscribe the oath of office and allegiance set out in the Sixth Schedule, and shall do so in the presence of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

(2) A judge of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court, other than the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, shall before exercising the functions of a judge take and subscribe the oath of office and allegiance set out in the Sixth Schedule in relation to his judicial duties in whatever office.

(2A) A person taking the oath on becoming the President of the Court of Appeal shall do so in the presence of the senior judge available of the Court of Appeal.[Ins. Act A1260]

(3) A person taking the oath on becoming Chief Judge of a High Court shall do so in the presence of the senior judge available of that High Court.

(4) A person taking the oath on becoming a judge of the Federal Court shall do so in the presence of the Chief Justice or, in his absence, the next senior judge available of the Federal Court.[Am. Act A1260]

(4A) A person taking the oath on becoming a judge of the Court of Appeal shall do so in the presence of the President of the Court of Appeal or, in his absence, the next senior judge available of the Court of Appeal.[Ins. Act A1260]

(5) A person taking the oath on becoming a judge of a High Court (but not Chief Judge) shall do so in the presence of the Chief Judge of that Court or, in his absence, the next senior judge available of that Court.[Am. Act A1260]

125  Tenure of office and remuneration of judges of Federal Court.

(1) Subject to the provisions of Clauses (2) to (5), a judge of the Federal Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-six years or such later time, not being later than six months after he attains that age, as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may approve.[Am. Act A1239]

(2) A judge of the Federal Court may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong but shall not be removed from office except in accordance with the following provisions of this Article.

(3) If the Prime Minister, or the Chief Justice after consulting the Prime Minister, represents to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that a judge of the Federal Court ought to be removed on the ground of any breach of any provision of the code of ethics prescribed under Clause (3B) or on the ground of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall appoint a tribunal in accordance with Clause (4) and refer the representation to it; and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the judge from office.[Am. Act A1260]

(3A) Where a judge has committed a breach of any provisions of the code of ethics prescribed under Clause (3B) but the Chief Justice is of the opinion that the breach does not warrant the judge being referred to a tribunal appointed under Clause (4), the Chief Justice may refer the judge to a body constituted under federal law to deal with such breach.[Ins. Act A1260]

(3B) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the recommendation of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts may, after consulting the Prime Minister, prescribe in writing a code of ethics which shall also include provisions on the procedure to be followed and sanctions which can be imposed other than the removal of a judge from office under Clause (3), in relation to a breach of any provision of the code of ethics.[Ins. Act A1260]


(3C) The code of ethics prescribed under Clause (3B) shall be observed by every judge of the Federal Court and every judicial commissioner.[Ins. Act A1260]



(4) The tribunal appointed under Clause (3) shall consist of not less than five persons who hold or have held office as judge of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court or, if it appears to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong expedient to make such appointment, persons who hold or have held equivalent office in any other part of the Commonwealth, and shall be presided over by the member first in the following order, namely, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President and the Chief Judges according to their precedence among themselves, and other members according to the order of their appointment to an office qualifying them for membership (the older coming before the younger of two members with appointments of the same date).[Am. Act A1260]


(5) Pending any reference and report under Clause (3) the Yang di- Pertuan Agong may on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and, in the case of any other judge after consulting the Chief Justice, suspend a judge of the Federal Court from the exercise of his functions.
(6) Parliament shall by law provide for the remuneration of the judges of the Federal Court, and the remuneration so provided shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund.

(6A) Subject to the provisions of this Article, Parliament may by law provide for the terms of office of the judges of the Federal Court other than their remuneration.

(7) The remuneration and other terms of office (including pension rights) of a judge of the Federal Court shall not be altered to his disadvantage after his appointment.

(8) Notwithstanding Clause (1), the validity of anything done by a judge of the Federal Court shall not be questioned on the ground that he had attained the age at which he was required to retire.

(9) This Article shall apply to a judge of the Court of Appeal and to a judge of a High Court as it applies to a judge of the Federal Court, except that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong before suspending under Clause (5) a judge of the Court of Appeal or a judge of a High Court other than the President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Judge of a High Court shall consult the President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Judge of that High Court instead of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court.

(10) The President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts shall be responsible to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court.




125A  Exercise of powers by judges.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, it is hereby declared that -
(a) the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and a judge of the Federal Court may exercise all or any of the powers of a judge of the Court of Appeal and of a judge of a High Court;
(aa) the President of the Court of Appeal and a judge of the Court of Appeal may exercise all or any of the powers of a judge of a High Court; and
(b) a judge of the High Court in Malaya may exercise all or any of the powers of a judge of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, and vice versa.

(2) The provisions of this Article shall be deemed to have been an integral part of this Constitution as from Malaysia Day.

126  Power to punish for contempt.

The Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court shall have power to punish any contempt of itself.

127  Restriction on Parliamentary discussion of conduct of judge.

The conduct of a judge of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court shall not be discussed in either House of Parliament except on a substantive motion of which notice has been given by not less than one quarter of the total number of members of that House, and shall not be discussed in the Legislative Assembly of any State.

128  Jurisdiction of Federal Court.

(1) The Federal Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have jurisdiction to determine in accordance with any rules of court regulating the exercise of such jurisdiction -
(a) any question whether a law made by Parliament or by the Legislature of a State is invalid on the ground that it makes provision with respect to a matter with respect to which Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State has no power to make laws; and
(b) disputes on any other question between States or between the Federation and any State.

(2) Without prejudice to any appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court, where in any proceedings before another court a question arises as to the effect of any provision of this Constitution, the Federal Court shall have jurisdiction (subject to any rules of court regulating the exercise of that jurisdiction) to determine the question and remit the case to the other court to be disposed of in accordance with the determination.

(3) The jurisdiction of the Federal Court to determine appeals from the Court of Appeal, a High Court or a judge thereof shall be such as may be provided by federal law.

129  (Special jurisdiction of Supreme Court as to the interpretation of Constitution - Repealed).

130  Advisory jurisdiction of Federal Court.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may refer to the Federal Court for its opinion any question as to the effect of any provision of this Constitution which has arisen or appears to him likely to arise, and the Federal Court shall pronounce in open court its opinion on any question so referred to it.

131  (Appeals from Federal Court - Repealed).

131A  Provision for incapacity, etc. of Chief Justice, President or Chief Judge.

(1) Any provision made by federal law for the functions of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or the President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Judge of a High Court to be performed, in the event of a vacancy in the office or of his inability to act, by another judge of the Federal Court may extend to his functions under this Constitution.

(2) Any provision made by federal law for the functions of the President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Judge of a High Court to be performed, in the event of a vacancy in the office or of his inability to act, by another judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court, as the case may be, may extend to his functions under this Constitution other than functions as judge of the Federal Court.

SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND BENEFITS  OF MALAYSIAN JUDGES 



JUDGES' REMUNERATION ACT 1971
FIRST SCHEDULE

[Subsection 2(1)]

(1) Judges
(2) Salary (pensionable)
(3) Effective date
1.
Chief Justice
RM36,000.00 per month
1-7-2015
2.
President of the Court of Appeal
RM31,500.00 per month
1-7-2015
3.
Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaya
RM30,500.00 per month
1-7-2015
4.
Chief Judge of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak
RM30,000.00 per month
1-7-2015
5.
Judges of the Federal Court
RM28,500.00 per month
1-7-2015
6.
Judges of the Court of Appeal
RM27,500.00 per month
1-7-2015
7.
Judges of the High Courts in Malaya and Sabah and Sarawak


RM26,500.00 per month
1-7-2015

ALLOWANCES AND OTHER BENEFITS- all in Schedule 2 - There is a lot, but let us look at some samples

SPECIAL JUDICIAL ALLOWANCE:

1. Chief Justice  - RM15,000.00 per month
2. President of the Court of Appeal - RM12,000.00 per month
3. Chief Judges of the High Court in Malaya - RM10,000.00 per month
4. Chief Judges of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak  - RM10,000.00 per month
5. Judges of the Federal Court - RM8,000.00 per month
6. Judges of the Court of Appeal - RM7,000.00 per month
7. Judges of the High Courts in Malaya and Sabah and Sarawak RM6,000.00 per month

There are many different allowances for judges. Below we just look at the Chief Justices, but all other judges also do receive in slightly lesser amounts

 SECOND SCHEDULE [Subsection 2(2)] 

ACCOMMODATION:
1. Chief Justice- (i) free fully furnished institutional quarters which (including the compound) shall be maintained free of charge, or in lieu thereof a house rent subsidy of RM 5,000.00 per month;

(ii) a provision of RM 3,000.00 per month for domestic help; and  

(iii) a provision of RM 4,100.00 per annum for house and garden upkeep. …


ENTERTAINMENT ALLOWANCE:
Chief Justice - RM6,000.00 per month

 Other allowances and benefits include Regional Allowance, Disturbance Allowance, Moving Allowance, Annual Leave, Medical Benefits, Car, Clothing Allowance, Lodging Expenses, Subsistence Allowance, Utility Bills(paid for), Internet/Communication Reimbursements, sports and recreational club membership, overseas travel...(look these up yourself...as there are a lot)


Notes from past posts

a) Judges pay & pensions

There really is a need to increase the monthly wages of judges - and to re-look at the pension scheme. The current pension scheme for judges is really bad - for not only does a Judge lose all his 'allowances' and benefits, but he also not even assured of 50% of his last drawn salary. WHY? Because judge's pensions are determined and calculated by a odd formula that looks at the number of months that the judge has sat on the Bench. Hence, the worry about the future ...how will I survive after my retirement?...


 b) Get rid of that 'contract Judge system' or probation judge system - the Judicial Commissioners. Just appoint them straight as judges...so they enjoy all that as been put in place to ensure independence. Remember security of tenure is one such safeguard....PR Nizar -v- BN Zambry : Many expected that decision...and that is BAD

...Judges should NEVER join law firms and/or Private Companies immediately after retirement. They should also not be accepting offers from the Government to become Chairpersons and/or sit in some Commissions and/or Government bodies/agencies. Is the government "rewarding"'good' judges who "listened" and/or who "behaved"? We must not forget that the Government is also many a time made a party in suits before the court - and JUDGES who sit and hear these cases must never (and also never be seen to be) Pro-Government and/or Anti-Government but must mete out Justice as an INDEPENDENT JUDGE.

Judges must be independent - be seen to be independent when they are sitting on the bench and therefore what they do after retirement also matters.... - Post-retirement conduct of judges will affect public perception on the independence of judiciary

Malaysia - 16 hanged to death, Death Row -1,122 (2014 - Feb 2017)

$
0
0
Malaysia has been telling us that Malaysia will abolish the death penalty, especially the mandatory death penalty. At the last Universal Periodic Review(2013-2014), Malaysia said, “…The research arm of the Attorney-General’s Chambers is currently undertaking a comprehensive study to examine the legal and policy frameworks related to the application of the death penalty in Malaysia, scheduled for completion by end 2014. The findings and recommendations of the study will subsequently be presented to the Government for policy consideration and decision…” In fact, it has been more than a decade that Malaysia have been looking at this matter...but still no effective implementation yet. Let the judges decide on the appropriate sentence, after considering all the relevant circumstances of particular convicts....

When Malaysia is 'studying' - considering the abolition - then reasonably there must be a moratorium on all execution until after the government decides, and the laws amended. 

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

It is shocking to learn that since 2014 (after the last UPR), Malaysia has executed 16 persons until February 2017. It is shocking to hear that Malaysia also voted against the United Nations General Assembly Resolution calling for a moratorium on execution in December 2016 - when Malaysia should really have just ABSTAINED given the fact an of an ongoing review of the death penalty.

Worse still is the fact that many of these executions are being carried out in 'secret'. To be able to use that argument that reason for keeping the death penalty is 'deterrence', means Malaysia must actively publicize death sentences and executions - if not, how is Malaysia trying to scare people from committing the said crimes?

Judges and courts can make mistakes, and persons can be wrongly convicted and sentenced - That is what the Pakatan Harapan (DAP, PKR and Pribumi-BERSATU) is saying. Anwar is only serving a few years in jail and then he will be released...but what about the people who are being hanged to death? Or is these people really saying that Malaysian courts made no mistakes except for Anwar's case... Why is PKR,Pribumi-BERSATU, DAP, PAS, ...not coming out and publicly declaring that the are against the death penalty. Will their election manifesto clearly state that they will abolish the death penalty, and commute the sentence of all those on death row to imprisonment...Take a stand...

 


Monday, 27 March 2017 | MYT 3:40 PM

More than 1,100 people have received death sentence in Malaysia


KUALA LUMPUR: More than 1,100 people have been convicted and sentenced to death by the courts up to Feb 21 this year, said Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

"Based on statistics from the Prison Department, as of Feb 21 this year, a total of 1,122 prisoners have been found guilty and sentenced to death by court," said Dr Ahmad Zahid, who is also the Home Minster in a written parliamentary reply.

His reply did not state from when these convictions took place.

He was responding to a question from Kasthuri Patto (DAP-Batu Kawan), who asked the Ministry to reveal the statistics of prisoners who have been sentenced to death according to background and cases as of Feb this year.

Ahmad Zahid said a total of 16 inmates - 14 Malaysian and two foreigners - had been executed between 2014 and Feb 21 this year.

"From the total, a total of 15 prisoners have been sentenced to death for murder while the other one was due to a crime involving firearms," said Dr Ahmad Zahid.

Last week, The Cabinet agreed 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 said the review will enable judges to mete suitable sentences in marginal cases where offenders could be given jail sentences.

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/03/27/total-death-penalty-1100-zahid/#jcrU7qTtExW6TZ8Z.99

ADPAN and HR groups shocked that Adilur Rahman Khan was detained at KLIA?

$
0
0

Adilur Rahman Khan from Odhikar, a member of the ADPAN, was detained at the Kuala Lumpur Internationbal Airport(KLIA) by the Malaysian Immigration and prevented entry (he is still being detained at this time). He was supposed to be attending the General Assembly of ADPAN today(20/7/2017), and Malaysian National Conference on 21-22 July. At the ADPAN General Assembly today, Adilur Rahman Khan, was one of 8 who were succesfully voted into the Executive Committee of ADPAN for the 2017-2019 term.

After Malaysian embassy in Bangladesh, had issued the required visa, it is absurd for Adilur Rahman Khan then to be detained at the KLIA International airport, and denied entry.

adpan adilur statementcropped-adpan-national-conference-poster1.jpg


Malaysia: Arbitrary arrest of Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan

20/07/2017
Urgent Appeal
Human Rights Defenders
  • Malaysia
MYS 001 / 0717 / OBS 083
Arbitrary arrest /Harassment
Malaysia

July 20, 2017

The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and FIDH, requests your URGENT intervention in the following situation in Malaysia.

Brief description of the information:

The Observatory has been informed with great concern about the arbitrary arrest in Kuala Lumpur of Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan, Secretary of the human rights non-governmental organisation [1], also a member of OMCT General Assembly and FIDH Vice-President.

According to the information received, on July 20, 2017, at about 4.00 am, Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan was detained by immigration officers upon his arrival at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. No reason was given for his detention.

Mr. Rahman Khan was travelling to Malaysia to attend the National Conference on Death Penalty organised by the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) from July 21 to 22, 2017 in Kuala Lumpur.

The Observatory strongly condemns Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan’s arbitrary arrest, and calls upon the Malaysian authorities to release him immediately and unconditionally, as well as to guarantee in all circumstances his physical and psychological integrity.

Actions requested:

Please write to the authorities in Malaysia, urging them to:

i. Guarantee, in all circumstances, the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan, as well as of all human rights defenders in Malaysia;

ii. Release Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan immediately and unconditionally as his detention is arbitrary since it only aims at sanctioning his human rights activities;

iii. Put an end to any kind of harassment - including at the judicial level - against Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan as well as all human rights defenders in Malaysia;

iv. Ensure in all circumstances that all human rights defenders in Malaysia are able to carry out their legitimate activities without any hindrance and fear of reprisals;

v. Conform with the provisions of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1998, especially its Articles 1 and 12.2;

vi. Ensure in all circumstances respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with international human rights standards and international instruments ratified by Malaysia.

Addresses:
· Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak, Prime Minister of Malaysia, Fax: +60 3 8888 3444, Email: ppm@pmo.gov.my

· Mr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Minister of Home Affairs of Malaysia, Fax: +60 3 8889 1613 / +60 3 8889 1610, Email: ahmadzahid@moha.gov.my
 

· Attorney General of Malaysia, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali, Fax: +603 8890 5670 Email: pro@agc.gov.my
 

· Tan Sri Razali Bin Ismail, Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), Fax: +60 3 2612 5620, Email: humanrights@suhakam.org.my;

· H.E. Mr. Amran Mohamed Zin, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. Fax: +41 22 710 75 01, Email: malgeneva@kln.gov.my

· Embassy of Malaysia in Brussels, Belgium, Fax: +32 2 762 50 49, Email: malbrussels@kln.gov.my

Please also write to the diplomatic missions or embassies of Malaysia in your respective country as well as to the EU diplomatic missions or embassies in Malaysia.
***
Geneva-Paris, July 20, 2017


The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (the Observatory) was created in 1997 by the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and FIDH. The objective of this programme is to intervene to prevent or remedy situations of repression against human rights defenders. OMCT and FIDH are both members of ProtectDefenders.eu, the European Union Human Rights Defenders Mechanism implemented by international civil society.

 

Bangladesh human rights activist detained at KLIA

 | July 20, 2017

Suaram condemns arrest of Adilur Rahman Khan who arrived this morning to attend a conference in Kuala Lumpur on the abolition of the death penalty.

PETALING JAYA: The arrest of a Bangladeshi human rights activist at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) this morning has been condemned by a local rights group.
Adilur Rahman Khan was detained by immigration officers at KLIA at about 4am today. Khan is the secretary of Odhikar, a human rights NGO based in Bangladesh.
He had travelled to Malaysia to attend a conference on the topic of “Abolition of the death penalty”.
“Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) condemns the detention of Adilur Rahman Khan.
"As of 10am, no reason has been given by immigration officers as to why he was detained. However, Suaram was informed that Khan has now been moved to the immigration lock-up,” Suaram executive director Sevan Doraisamy said in a statement.
The NGO urged the authority to release Khan and called for an end to the “persistent harassment against human rights defenders visiting Malaysia”.
This is the latest action taken against foreign human rights activists by the Malaysian government.
Earlier this month, Amnesty International (AI) said it was concerned over the barring of Singapore human rights defender Han Hui Hui from entering Malaysia last month.
Han had been blocked from entering the country after having been labelled an “undesirable immigrant” by the home minister.
“AI notes that this is not the first time the government has barred peaceful activists from entering Malaysia.
“In recent years, Hong Kong political activist Joshua Wong and Indonesian human rights defender Mugiyanto Sipin have been prevented from visiting the country, as well”. - FMT News, 20/7/2017FMT News, 20/7/2017

Immigration detained activist from Bangladesh, claims Suaram

  •    Published     Updated

The human rights group Suaram has condemned the Immigration Department for supposedly detaining a human rights activist from Bangladesh.
"Suaram calls for his immediate release and demand that the Immigration Department stop its persistent harassment against human rights defenders visiting Malaysia," it said in a statement today.
Suaram claimed that Odhikar secretary Adilur Rahman Khan was detained at about 4am today at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport, and as of 10am, he was not told the reason for his detention.
He was supposed to attend a conference on the abolition of the death penalty that would take place in Kuala Lumpur this evening until Saturday.
Malaysiakini has contacted the Immigration director-general Mustafar Ali and is waiting for a response. - Malaysiakini, 20/7/2017


Malaysia detains prominent Bangladeshi rights activist Adilur Rahman Khan

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) - Malaysia has detained a prominent Bangladesh activist, civil groups said on Thursday (July 20), describing the government action as "harassment" against human rights defenders.
Adilur Rahman Khan, secretary of the rights group Odhikar, was detained after arriving at Kuala Lumpur International Airport early Thursday, activists said.
He was due to speak at a two-day conference organised by the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network
Rights group Voice of the Malaysian People (Suaram) said Khan was being kept incommunicado at the airport's immigration lock-up and appealed for his release.
"Suaram calls for his immediate release and demand that the immigration department stop its persistent harassment against human rights defenders visiting Malaysia," it said in a statement.
Immigration authorities could not be reached for comment.
Malaysia often denies foreign pro-democracy activists entry into the country without giving explanation.

The Asian Human Rights Commission urged the international human rights community "to immediately intervene in this case, and secure Khan's release from arbitrary detention".
The commission said it was worried that the detention of Khan, his country's former deputy attorney general, "is the result of collusion between governments in Bangladesh and Malaysia".
In the past, Khan's group has been critical of human rights violations allegedly committed by Bangladeshi security forces, including torture and extra judicial killings.
Malaysia has also denied Khan a lawyer and the right to speak to anyone, the group said.
In 2015, student activist Joshua Wong, who helped organise the 2014 Hong Kong protests, was denied entry by immigration authorities. - The Straits Times, 20/7/2017

Bangladeshi activist should be allowed entry — MADPET (Malay Mail, 20/7/2013)

$
0
0
Thursday July 20, 2017
10:13 PM GMT+8
JULY 20 -- Madpet (Against Death Penalty and Torture) is appalled by the unjustifiable detention of human rights defender Adilur Rahman Khan by the Immigration authorities at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport at about 4.00am today(20/7/2017).Commission in Bangladesh, before he could leave Bangladesh and come to Malaysia. . Such visa’s are never simply issued as of right, but only after a thorough vetting of the applicant and his reasons for coming to Malaysia.

As such, the arrest and detention of Adilur Rahman Khan is most unjust and unreasonable. If the Malaysian government did not want Adilur Rahman Khan to enter Malaysia, they should never have issued him the required entry visa in Bangladesh.

In the past, Malaysia have also sadly prevented HR Defenders, like Singaporean human rights defender Han Hui Hui and Indonesian Mugiyanto Sipin from entering Malaysia but they were from countries whose citizens had to get their visa on arrival when they reached Malaysia, whereas Adilur Rahman Khan had to first apply and obtain his visa first from the Malaysian embassy before travelling to this country. As such, this makes his current arrest, detention and possible deportation back to Bangladesh most unjust.

“We detained him over immigration issues. We are checking his documents. Adilur will not be allowed to enter Malaysia. He will be deported,” Malaysian immigration officer Shely was quoted by Bangla Tribune as saying.(Dhaka Tribune, 20/7/2017). This is absurd, as any immigration issues should have been considered before the Malaysian High Commission issued him his visa.
Adilur Rahman Khan, the Secretary of the Bangladeshi Human Rights Organisation, Odhikar, who is a member of the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network(ADPAN), was coming to Malaysia to attend the General Assembly of ADPAN on 20/7/2017, and thereafter the “Abolition of the Death Penalty in Malaysia and in Asia” Malaysia National Conference and Training Workshop 0n 21-22 July 2017. Tan Sri Razali Ismail (Chairperson of the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) will be delivering the keynote address at this National Conference. The Minister Dato' Sri Azalina binti Othman Said has also been invited to deliver a keynote address.

 Adilur Rahman Khan is also currently a member of OMCT General Assembly and a FIDH Vice-President. He was also awarded the 2014 Gwangju Prize for Human Rights.

As such, Madpet
  • Calls on the Malaysian government to immediately release Adilur Rahman Khan and allow him to enter Malaysia;
  • Calls on Malaysia to adequately compensate for all the suffering and deprivation of rights suffered by Adilur Rahman Khan, by reason of the detention of him at the KLIA International Airport
  • Calls on Malaysia, in the event that Adilur Rahman Khan is prevented entry and is subsequently deported, to apologize to him for all the suffering and rights violated brought about by most likely the failings of the High Commission of Malaysia in Bangladesh, and to pay him a just compensation
  • Calls on Malaysia to stop denial of entry into Malaysia of Human Rights Defenders, and to abide by the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised  Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)
*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online - Malay Mail Online, 20/7/2017

See related post

ADPAN and HR groups shocked that Adilur Rahman Khan was detained at KLIA?

'Granted visa but denied entry' - HRD Adilur Rahman Khan(Malalysiakini)

$
0
0

Amnesty condemns Putrajaya's trend of deporting human rights activists

(Updated
 
Amnesty International has condemned what it described as a growing trend by Putrajaya to deport human rights activists.

This was after Bangladeshi human rights group Odhikar's secretary Adilur Rahman Khan was detained by immigration at Kuala Lumpur International Airport at 4am and is set to be deported.

"Adilur's detention is the latest in a series of cases where peaceful activists have been barred from entering the country, including Hong Kong political activist Joshua Wong, Indonesian human rights defender Mugiyanto Sipin and Singaporean political activist Han Hui Hui," said James Gomez, Amnesty International’s Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.Adilur was to attend the National Conference on Death Penalty tomorrow.

Gomez called for Adilur's immediate release and that he be allowed to remain in Malaysia.

“The Malaysian authorities must immediately and unconditionally release Adilur Rahman Khan and allow him to participate in and speak at the conference.

“There is no justification for detaining him whatsoever. It is an outrage that a human rights activist cannot even travel freely to speak on a key human rights issue," he said.

Meanwhile, Suaram project coordinator Dobby Chew said the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) visited Adilur this evening.

"Suhakam visited Adilur and verifies that he is well and was not mistreated.

"But Adilur is to be deported. The reason for denying entry was not given," he said in a statement.
Chew said Adilur's mobile phone and passport were taken away from him while he was under detention.

"They have been returned and Adilur has been in contact with friends and family," he said. Earlier today, Suaram, accompanied by lawyers, had also gone to KLIA to find out about his detention.

'Granted visa but denied entry'

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet), which is participating at the National Conference on Death Penalty, said it was appalled by the "unjustified detention".

"Being a Bangladesh citizen, he did not enjoy a visa on arrival when he arrived in Malaysia. 

"As such, he needed to apply for a visa from the Malaysian High Commission in Bangladesh, before he could leave Bangladesh and come to Malaysia. Such visas are never simply issued as a right, but only after a thorough vetting of the applicant and his reasons for coming to Malaysia.
 As such, the arrest and detention of Adilur Rahman Khan are most unjust and unreasonable. If the Malaysian government did not want Adilur Rahman Khan to enter Malaysia, they should never have issued him the required entry visa in Bangladesh," said Madpet representative Charles Hector.

Hector urged the government to immediately release Adilur and compensate him for the "deprivation" of his rights.

He added if Putrajaya is adamant on deporting him, it should apologise to Adilur for granting him a visa in the first place. - Malaysiakini, 20/7/2017

Malaysia executed 30 from 2007 until 10 July 2017

$
0
0
30 persons were executed in Malaysia from 2007 until 10 July 2017 - This information was provided by the government in response to a Parliamentary Question raised by Member of Parliament N. Surendran, and the answer is dated 25/7/2017.

30 persons executed - 27 Malaysiansand 3 foreign nationals

25 were executed for murder, which carries the mandatory death penalty
3  for drug traffickingthat also carries the mandatory death penalty, and also have those unjust legal presumptions, which shift the burden to the accussed to prove that it is not their drugs or that they were not drug traffickers.
2 were executed for firearm offences(We believe that it is pursuant to section 3 of the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 provides for the mandatory death penalty if firearms are discharged with intent to cause death or hurt to any person, shall, notwithstanding that no hurt is caused for offences like extortion, robbery, kidnapping, house breaking or house trespass.)

Notes:- 

The mandatory death penalty in the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971, is also inconsistent with the crime of ‘Committing terrorist acts’ (sec.130C Penal Code), where death is the mandatory penalty ONLY if death is a result of the crime.As the section 3 of the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 need to be amended, and the mandatory death penalty should be removed, returning the discretion back to judges to determine the appropriate sentence in each case. If no death is the consequence of a criminal act, then reasonably a perpetrator should never be sentenced to death.

See earlier post, where again in an answer to a Parliament question, which was reported on 27/3/2017, it was disclosed that 16 persons have been executed (14 Malaysian and two foreigners) had been executed between 2014 and Feb 2017.1.100 sentenced to death, 16 executed (2014 - February 2017) [Star, 27 March, 2017)

 





MPs play biggest role in abolishing death penalty, says activist(Star)

$
0
0
Thursday, 27 July 2017 | MYT 8:42 AM

MPs play biggest role in abolishing death penalty, says activist




KUALA LUMPUR: Parliamentarians should educate their constituents on the need to abolish the death penalty, said a human rights activist.

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) coordinator Charles Hector said they should also convince their fellow colleagues and respective parties to take a clear stand on the abolishment of the death penalty.

“Since the death penalty exists in the laws, the laws need to be amended or repealed.

"So ultimately the final decision comes to the legislature, which is parliament and they have to pass the required laws to abolish it,” he told the Star Online after a parliamentary roundtable session on the abolishment of the death penalty here on Wednesday.

The session was arranged by the Parliamentary Global Action (PGA) group and opened by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said.

Present were parliamentarians, civil society organisations and government officials from other countries.

Hector claimed that he personally knew of parliamentarians from both sides of the divide who are for the abolishment of the death penalty but that a lot were afraid to publicly declare their stand.

“I think any good parliamentarian should not be doing things primarily for the purpose of winning or losing votes. He would not be playing his role to lead and to push for the correct decisions,” he said.

He said that as a very minimum, Malaysia should immediately amend the law to remove the mandatory death penalty for all offences, and not just for drug trafficking cases.

In March, Azalina said the Cabinet agreed to review the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 to allow judges to use their discretion in sentencing offenders instead of imposing the mandatory death sentence.

Azalina had said the review will enable judges to mete suitable sentences in marginal cases where offenders could be given jail sentences.

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had told parliament in March that 1,122 prisoners were on death row nationwide as of Feb 21.

With nine executions in 2016, Malaysia is among 23 countries that executed 1,032 people globally. This figure excludes China, which Amnesty International believes executes thousands of people yearly.

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/07/27/parliamentarians-biggest-role-abolishing-death-penalty-says-activist/#8zZB3FtkDTzYmb2G.99
 
 
Viewing all 2633 articles
Browse latest View live