Quantcast
Channel: CHARLES HECTOR
Viewing all 2617 articles
Browse latest View live

The origins of the labour movement in M’sia (Part 2 of a series)

$
0
0

The origins of the labour movement in M’sia

Published:     Modified:

Editor’s note: This is part two of a series on the Malaysian labour movement.

FEATURE | The fact that the Malaysian trade unions movement played a significant role in the political, economic and sociocultural life of Malaysia has been forgotten by many.

The labour movement did actively struggle for independence from the British colonial powers, and contributed significantly even in the determination of the future of Malaysia, including the drafting of the Malaysian Constitution.

But alas, all that is in the past, and the trade unions have been systematically weakened and isolated from involvement in the life of the nation, first by the British colonial masters and thereafter by the Umno-led coalition that has governed Malaysia since independence.

This weakening, nay, annihilation, of the labour movement still continues today through the actions and omissions of a government that seems to not just have embraced neoliberalism, but is also seen today as being pro-business. Of late, government-owned and controlled companies also are seen to be violating worker rights.

The future of the labour movement in Malaysia now depends on the workers and the trade unions, who really must appreciate the history of the Malaysian labour movement and decide whether they would want to struggle to make the labour movement once again strong and relevant, or just allow the slow withering away of not just the movement, but also worker and trade union rights.  

Origins of union: Protection and promotions of rights

A worker alone is weak, but workers united are strong. Workers have always naturally come to a realisation that only together as workers will they be able to fight and get better rights and justice at their workplace. As such, more likely than not, there have been organised worker solidarity actions in one form or another ever since there have been workers in Malaysia.

For Malaysia, the advent of worker struggle would have been in the rubber plantations and the tin mines (photo), whose labour was primarily workers of Indian and Chinese origins – a reality then when Malay workers resisted working in such mines and plantations, choosing rather self-employment, small businesses, farming, fishing and the civil service. The majority of the workers in the civil service were Malay.



The origins of organised labour in the form of worker unions in Malaysia date back to the 1920s. Workers then, who were primarily of Chinese and Indian origins in the private sector and Malay workers in the civil service, formed what was known as General Labour Unions (GLUs).

GLU membership was generally open to any worker, with no restrictions with regards to any particular industry, sector or workplace, unlike what we have today in Malaysia.

GLUs were generally formed in different geographical areas all around Malaya. They attracted many workers and were strong. In the struggle for rights, history shows that many actions were taken by GLUs, including strikes.

The labour movement then was not restricted to merely employer-employee matters, but also played an active role in the political, economic and sociocultural lives of the country.



The labour movement, together with other pro-independence groups (photo - MPAJA), was also actively involved in the struggle for independence from the British. They were also active in the struggle against Japanese occupation forces during World War II.

An example of a union then was the Selangor Engineering Mechanics Association, which was registered in 1928, and was maybe one of the first registered trade unions in Malaya.

The GLUs and many of the unions also started coming together as coalitions and federations – and finally merged into the Pan-Malayan General Labour Union (PMGLU) and the Singapore GLU.

British moves to weaken labour movement

The British colonial powers, worried about the growing labour movement, decided to try to control and influence it. The British colonial government were especially concerned about the perceived influence that the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) and other pro-independence groups had in the labour movement.

Methods the British employed to weaken and control the labour movement included the enactment of laws like the Trade Union Ordinance of 1940, and the appointment of the Trade Union Advisor.

One of the primary objects of this Trade Union Ordinance was to stabilise the labour situation in the interest of increasing production to sustain Britain's economy and its war efforts. It was not concerned about worker or trade union rights.



The Malayan economy at that time was geared to support the wartime needs of Britain. As such, labour and trade union rights, and existing struggles for better rights had to be suppressed and subordinated to what the British considered more important – Imperial Defence.

Malaya then was considered the “dollar arsenal” for the British empire, and the 1940 Ordinance was enacted for the purpose of ensuring a continued flow of revenue to the British Empire.

The stated object in the title of this 1940 Ordinance was, “An Enactment for the Registration and Control of Trade Unions''. Its declared purpose was the fostering of “the right kind of responsible leadership amongst workers and at the same time to discourage or reduce such influence as the professional agitators may have had and to reduce the opportunities or the excuse for the activities of such persons.''

It was clearly to weaken the existing labour movement, and transform existing trade unions and union leadership into what the British wanted.

The existing worker solidarity was to be destroyed, and a “divide and weaken” policy was the aim. Private sector workers were to be separated from public sector workers, and workers from different industry and sectors were to be kept apart.



The role of unions were to be limited to simply “industrial relations” matters – matters between workers and employers only. Unions were no longer allowed to be involved in matters concerning the nation, including the struggle for independence.

This new Trade Union Ordinance now required unions in Malaya to be registered (or rather re-registered), which meant submitting an application to the government, and receiving government approval prior to registration. This allowed the government not to re-register some of the stronger unions, and federation of unions across different sectors or industries.

As such, the new law prevented government (or public sector) employees and private sector employees from belonging to the same union. The affiliation of unions with other classes of unions was also prevented. Restriction was also imposed on the usage of union funds.

The registration rules were somewhat restrictive. For instance, government employees and non-government employees could not anymore belong to the same union or even to affiliate themselves with unions of other classes of workers. The usage of union funds was also restricted - it could no longer be used for a variety of other purposes, including political purposes.

Under these rules, all the existing GLUs (or even other federations of unions across different sectors, industry or occupation) were not qualified for registration and therefore could no longer operate legally.

The new Trade Union Ordinance and laws that came into force in 1946 effectively killed the GLUs, which could no longer be registered (or re-registered) under the new law, and as such were no longer able to operate legally. It also killed off many stronger unions.

What is of interest was that this new policy and laws did not apply to the union movement in Britain and the UK. It only applied to Malaysia. British unions to date are still involved in political struggles, and even political parties like the Labour Party, in the UK.


This article was first published by Aliran here. Malaysiakini has been authorised to republish it.
Part 1: The state of the labour movement in Malaysia
Part 2: The origins of the labour movement in Malaysia

Read more at https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/402284#MDlgrVFyceD2vyMC.99


Keep people poor and in debt, and they will be afraid to stand up for rights or justice?

$
0
0
FREEDOM- Well that has been something that Malaysians have not really fully experienced - thanks to the UMNO-led coalition(today the Barisan Nasional) that has 'ruled' in Malaysia ever since independence in 1957. 

The funny thing is that many Malaysians have not just adapted but have also accepted the state of affairs...and some even believe that is all that we deserve... If there are going to be any changes, well we Malaysians really must WANT it and be willing to fight for this...we cannot simply be an 'independent' by-stander, not committed...and doing nothing...

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






Well, now there is a lot of 'finger pointing' at Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak - 1MDB, kleptocracy, 'poor' governance, etc...BUT, the fact is that Najib could be very easily removed as Prime Minister - it is the Members of Parliament(wakil rakyat/peoples' representative) that is keeping him in power - the moment that Najib loses the confidence of the majority of the MPs, he cannot anymore remain as Prime Minister - he will have to resign and/or advise the Yang DiPertuan Agung to call for a new elections. 

Then, there is UMNO itself, UMNO members can also get rid of Najib Tun Razak as the President of UMNO...but that too is not happening? 

What about BN component parties - MCA, MIC, Gerakan, Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu(PBB), Parti Rakyat Bersatu Sarawak(SUPP), Parti Liberal Demokratik(LDP),Parti Progresif Penduduk Malaysia(MYPPP), Parti Bersatu Sabah(PBS), Pertubuhan Pasok Momogun Kadazandusun Bersatu(UPKO), Parti Demokratik Progresif(PDP),  Parti Rakyat Sarawak, ... Well, have these 'independent' BN component parties all lost its independent voice - silence means, the consent to all that Najib and the BN government is doing? UMNO dominance and control within the BN looks like the new reality - and its various component parties seem to have simply lost its own identity...freedom..independence?

Wakil Rakyat(peoples' representative) - MPs are peoples' representative and as such what they say and do should reflect the voice of the people? But alas, how many of these 'representatives' even have consultations and/or discussions with the people they allegedly represent? How many even provide information to the people of their constituencies? What is the problem about having a once a month public meeting with your constituents using some town hall, community hall or some other venue  - to simply report back to the people what is going on, to answer questions...to simply LISTEN to the views and concerns of the people you are supposed to be representing? [Well, Opposition MPs could say, they could not get the halls and the required permits in BN controlled states, but what about Selangor, Penang and Kelantan?

Well, if you do not have the time to meet the people once a month, well you could start a Blog/Website/FB Page - and keep the people in the know of the main issues, concerns, your opinions, the answers to your Parliamentary questions ....Hello, you are paid a lot being an MP, surely this could be done. Well, some have Blogs/Website ...but they use this to simply post their photos of them shaking hands, handing out 'gifts' and 'bantuan', opening some functions ... Important - but people need more information concerning major issues and concerns, etc...

People are also the problem - because they simply 'vote' without properly considering the candidates or the parties - do they have a history of being 'democratic', fighting for justice and rights,...OR you vote because the leadership of parties picked and chose these candidates? Do you try to meet with your MPs to get information, discuss issues, etc...? Or do you just go to see the peoples' representative to get 'donations' and 'contracts'? 

DEMOCRACY- Well, we claim that we live in a democracy, but the reality is that maybe we are living in an 'autocracy', 'dictatorship' or a 'feudalistic' state? We do not challenge or dare to voice out a different opinion from that of our 'leader' - we just listen and follow? We are 'obedient'...we are 'loyal' - and that is the problem not just in the government, but also in ordinary societies. The style of leadership is no more 'democratic'...and when members question or voice a different opinion, the solution seems to be simple - we expel them as members - usually the leaders do this, and the members simply do not question. Well, in a democratic organisation, there will also be many different opinions (some even against the opinion of the 'supreme' leaders)...there will always be criticism of actions taken and decisions made. But at the end of the day, despite the different viewpoints, criticisms, etc ...they will decide and take a common stand. Seldom, do they get a 100% support...but more than 50% is sufficient, and they do not expel members simply because of the difference of opinions. 

Is our political parties democratic? Well, at the recent UMNO AGM, oddly there seem to have been no different view or opposition to the actions of the leadership? PAS expelled Husam Musa because of his opinions and the wrongdoings he highlighted...and was there even a Disciplinary Hearing? Mahathir's Pribumi party has also been expelling 'leaders'/members who publicly raised questions and criticisms? So, look at the various parties - is it democratic? A party that does not practice democracy may not have the capacity to govern Malaysia in a democratic manner...

FREEDOM-well, that is what everyone is fighting for. But alas, many today may have sacrificed 'freedoms' and even rights in favour of mere survival ...

DEBTS can affect your 'freedom' and desire to struggle for 'rights'. If you end up with large debts, and monthly loan payment obligations, then a worker will not even highlight wrongdoings and fight for better right - Why? For fear of repercussions - loss of employment, overlooked for promotions, etc..UMNO-BN policy of not insisting on regular employment, and allowing unchecked precarious employment(short term contracts, workers supplied by contractors for labour, etc) simply makes this FEAR more ...and, hence a greater loss of FREEDOMS.

Well, this UMNO-BN government is encouraging people to buy OWN houses - take out your EPF(savings for old age) and buy your own house. Now, you can get almost 100% loan - and you get to pay back in 30 years. If you get a RM100,000 house(now very difficult), and you are paying say 5% interest on the loan, well by the time you end up paying your loan, you would have paid 150% interest, and that means you paid RM250,000-00 for the house, and monthly payments is about RM550 roughly - Well, how much monthly income needed for your survival? Minimum wage of RM1,000 - how much for all the other payments - electricity, Indah Water, water, telecommunication, Astro, transportation, etc...Will you finish payment by your retirement age? 

Problem is where will you buy the house? Will you be staying in it? Well, now employment security is gone ...thanks to the government, many people are on short-term contracts, and private companies can end up retrenching you...and finding a new job near the house you purchase is not at all easy these days. Civil servants do get transferred to where the need is, and same to many who are working in private sector. Now, if you are forced to move to another town - then, there is extra accommodation expenditure. Surely, the government knew all this - but alas the reality of ordinary people is not much the government's concern. And the fact that one is burdened by such monthly loan payments makes a person 'docile' - not willing to demand or even claim rights. Well, there you have it - people end up putting themselves in a situation, that makes them indifferent and not bothered...a non-payment of loan payments could result is loss of homes, cars, etc. 

Practically and reasonably, the government should have just build houses for people...and rent it out at a nominal sum. The government should have provided housing loans with a very low interest - hence becoming truly responsible for the people. When one suddenly loses monthly income - government could delay payment, or even re-structure payment. But if you took a loan from an ordinary private bank, you can forget about compassion - not pay, lawyers letter, house seized and auction. Low rental houses really a need especially for civil servants, and poorer Malaysians. Increase financial obligations - and the people will be 'controlled'.

Malaysia was a nation blessed with natural resources and goods - PETROLEUM, RUBBER, TIN, OIL PALM,...and good weather. Remember the British colonial government held from from granting Malaysia independence for a long time because of this...'wealth'...Finally, it handed over the government to the UMNO-MCA-MIC coalition...WHY? Why was that coalition given the power? A good question to ask...had it anything to do with that continuation of the British 'divide and rule' strategy...or more important 'protecting the wealth and businesses' of the British in Malaya? After all, the Malaysian government post-independence did not take back land, property or British businesses? So was it true INDEPENDENCE or was it just handing over power and control to cronnies or 'friends' or people who will protect British interest?

There was no dismantling of unjust oppressive laws the British left - like the laws 'weakening' and 'controlling trade unions? The old Sedition Act 1948 still is there and is still being used.

Why would they still maintain these policies and laws, that restrict freedoms, so long after Independence? Well, maybe it worked...and it certainly has kept UMNO, and now the UMNO led coalition, Barisan Nasional, in power. Further, if we look around, many of these leaders and their families have become rather wealthy...Comparatively, many Malaysians are still poor...and ultimately, the government, has admitted that financial assistance is needed for families earning less than RM4,000 monthly. [Beware the BR1M - because it is not a right in law, and depends solely on the discretion of the government of the day. It should be made into a right in law - then it becomes a right for all Malaysians]

The government administers the people's monies - but alas, now we continue to hear how a lot of public funds have also been wrongly taken by individuals for their own benefits - Corruption, Kleptocracy, Other Abuses of power, etc ....(Just have a look at even the Auditor Generals Report - and wonder why even after being highlighted, not much real actions have been taken against the guilty individuals...) The failure of government to take strict actions against the corrupt, especially in government, only makes the problem even bigger...Blame and responsibility would ultimately lie with the Prime Minister, the MPs that kept him in power, and of course the people who by their votes brought about this..

Now, the UMNO-BN government is slowly removing subsidies, increasing tols...increased cost of living. 

Worker wages, rights and 'weakened' unions were all put in place allegedly to make Malaysia more attractive and draw in foreign companies to come open their factories - So, many Malaysians sacrificed a lot and accepted these low wages and the state of affairs, and the government tried to keep cost of living low - so people could live decent lives. 

But these all are changing very fast under UMNO-BN, as now it moves even faster to adopt more and more neo-liberal(capitalism) policies - "Whatever you want you pay for it...if you cannot afford it, then too bad". Remember, the biggest advocate of neo-liberalism was the US, and the model has clearly failed which the emergence of a new class of poor and homeless. The policy does not care for those who cannot compete...the winners of the 100 meter race gets medals, and the others get nothing. 

Well, such 'neo-liberalism' thinking may be OK where all of the citizens are already well-to-do, and so some 'winners of the rat race' can get more and more...But reality is that in a human community, it will not work - for human beings are diverse in skills, abilities, capacities ...and our responsibility must always be for the well-being of ALL - not just ourselves and/or our families. Governments should ensure this, and as such the focus must always be for the poor and marginalised - to ensure that their livelihood is as equitable as others - but the UMNO-BN seems not to understand this. Look at BR1M - logic dictates greater assistance for the poorer families and individuals - so this practice of giving the same sum for all families earning RM3,000 or less is illogical.

Uplifting the socio-economic status of the poor in Malaysia - somehow the UMNO-BN government failed to grasp that concept...look around you. Welfarism or monetary payouts works for flood and natural disaster victims - but for an effective upliftment of the poor, one needs to give people the ability, skills and assistance so that they can themselves later improve their socio-economic position and will be no more be dependent on welfare or monetary assistance...

All in all, the UMNO-BN government, in governing Malaysia, has forced most Malaysians into poverty or financial instability - and so, they will continue to 'depend' on this government's welfaristic practices... 

They have encouraged Malaysians to be in debt - with the encouraging of people to buy homes, cars, etc ...on loan. A person who have much monthly loan obligations will be less likely to take RISKS which is crucial if we want to gain more rights and liberties, voice out and stop injustices and violations of rights, if we want to 'check and balance' leaders of government, etc...

Now, for those willing to speak up...government just created more THREATs - well, there is the Sedition Act, Peaceful Assemble Act, Criminal Defamation, Targeted Enforcement of Laws, Multimedia Act, Censorship laws --- well, the threat is targeted to almost everything ...including social media (even pressing 'Like' can get you in trouble)...Siti Noor Aishah Atam is in jail for having in her possession 12 books that were not banned in Malaysia. According to the government, Malaysians in this democratic country must be QUITE and accept things...your democratic right is the ability to VOTE once every 5 years...

One indicator of the failure of government is CRIME - well, is it increasing especially thefts and robbery (Well, UMNO-BN was smart - so no more statistics of crime - just some crime index?? Very smart. Well, then let us look at the number of persons in prison - well, in 2016, it was revealed that there are 59,600 in prisons (Does that even include the possibly thousands under Detention Without Trial laws - ABOLISH POCA AND DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL LAWS (38 Groups) - 142 juveniles have been arrested under the Prevention of Crime Act (POCA))

59,600 convicts in prisons in this country...Director of Inmate Management of the Prison Department, SAC Nordin Muhamad said of the total, 71.3 percent of those in prison are Malays and 66 per cent of them are between 22 and 40 years old.
59,600 persons in prison in a country of about 30 million - That is like 1 or 2 number of voters in a Parliamentary Constituency - and what 71.3% of prisoners are Malays, in a country where 50% of the population are Malay? Well, is that an indicator of the failure of UMNO-BN...

The special preference provided for in the Malaysian Federal Constitution for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak was meant to uplift the socio-economic condition of ethnic groups that were inequitably lower than primarily the Chinese Malaysians and Indian Malaysians...so with all these special allocations, UMNO-BN seems to have desperately failed even with the Malays? Well, or maybe the money and benefits have not been flowing to all persons in the said targeted ethnic groups - because there is certainly an increase of the number of very rich individuals from the said groups - and the rich have been growing richer and richer...

The keeping people poor and always needing the UMNO-BN, was that the strategy? Well, in recent years we have had cases of RM2.6 billion in PM's personal account, alleged loss of billions of ringgit from 1MDB (which strangely the government and 1MDB says that there was no such loss - but several other countries say the opposite like US, Singapore, Switzerland, etc ...) 
 
Majority are poor...indebted(with personal monthly loan repayment obligation) - so many Malaysians will just not have the 'capacity' to be bothered about other people in Malaysia - or the well-being of ALL Malaysians, and will be too fearful to take RISKS...to force a change in government or the priorities of the government? 

RISK will always be there when people want to CHANGE things ...So, will Malaysians take RISKS...or will they continue to keep UMNO-BN in power for the BR1M money, the chances of getting scholarship, the chance of getting jobs in the civil service, the possibility of getting a 'low cost house', 'small contracts', government 'subsidies', etc...

The failure of UMNO was the lack of questioning amongst the members of UMNO - likewise the failure of BN component parties. They say 'Silence is CONSENT' - so MCA, MIC, Gerakan, ...? Maybe, it is time that the various members of political parties need to re-evaluate their principles and core values, and even their leaders > Are you ready to abandon values and principles for some of your party members becoming Ministers or YBs? 

Yes - FEAR and desire not to do the needful for the betterment of Malaysia (nay...for the betterment of ALL persons in Malaysia) - Is that what you believe in and want?

The UMNO-BN government or persons associated with these parties have made 'insinuations' that there will be repercussions for those who oppose the incumbent government...so, what will you do? 


 
 

Some 33,500 convicts in prison because of drug abuse

Some 33,500 convicts in prison because of drug abuse
Of the total, 71.3 percent of those in prison are Malays and 66 per cent of them are between 22 and 40 years old.
 
KUALA LUMPUR: Some 33,500 of the 59,600 convicts in prisons in this country are because of drug offences and they represent 56 per cent of the total number of prison inmates nationwide.

Director of Inmate Management of the Prison Department, SAC Nordin Muhamad said of the total, 71.3 percent of those in prison are Malays and 66 per cent of them are between 22 and 40 years old.

"What is worrying is the involvement of our citizens in drug abuse. Only 11 per cent of prisoners due to drug offences are foreigners," he said while sitting as a panel member of an anti-drug forum, here today.
 
The forum organised by the Malay Consultative Council in collaboration with the Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation (MCPF), the Malaysian Drug Prevention Association (Pemadam) and Utusan Melayu Bhd, was attended by over 100 participants specially invited to find a more effective plan to fight drug abuse.

Meanwhile, principal assistant director (International) of the National Anti-Drug Agency (AADK) Hamizan Haidzir expressed concern over the rising number of drug abuse cases in this country.

In 2016 (last year), the number of arrests for drug offences stood at 30,844 people compared to only 26,000 in 2015 (the previous year).

"Drug abuse is on the rise throughout the world, particularly with the entry of synthetic drugs which have negative effects on the central nervous system."

Hamizan said the authorities will intensify its efforts to fight drug abuse by increasing the frequency of raids on premises with the aim to trace and arrest those involved in drug abuse.

-BERNAMA- Astro Awani, 14/6/2017







 

Worst off in this situation is the Malay population, I believe. The non-Malays, because they are alienated by the Bumiputra policy has learnt how to survive and even prosper without government assistance or preferences. Well, the 'Bumiputra' preferential policy really helps UMNO-BN, because without that many will not be able to make it in the market - in getting jobs, etc...

UMNO - well, it is a Malay party - and there are only about 50% Malays in Malaysia - but for the past few years, there is no more disclosure of the real number of Malays in Malaysia, as we now suddenly get the Bumiputra figures? 

Well, some of the ethnic groupings in Sabah and Sarawak are really not that happy of being lumped in as Bumiputra? Why? Who really are benefiting from these 'Bumiputra' preferences and allocations? How many Malays - what is the percentage of the total Malay population will this make? How many Kadazans? How many Ibans? How many Penan? 




How the British suppressed the Malayan labour movement (Part 3)

$
0
0

Part 3 of  4 parts

The state of the labour movement in Malaysia (Part 1)

The origins of the labour movement in M’sia (Part 2 of a series)


How the British suppressed the Malayan labour movement

 

Published:     Modified:
This is part three of a series on the Malaysian labour movement.

FEATURE | In 1947, the Pan-Malayan General Labour Union, which was established in 1946, changed its name to Pan-Malayan Federation of Trade Unions (PMFTU).

It boasted a membership of 263,598, and this represented more than half the total workforce in Malaya. 85 percent of all existing unions in Malaya were part of the PMFTU.

The attitude of the Malayan worker was more assertive during this period. For instance, a strike was reported of Chinese and Indian hospital workers because they no longer wanted to be addressed as 'boy', and workers began to see their subjection to physical punishments as unacceptable. 

Tamil trade unionists refused to suffer any longer the use of the derogatory term “Kling”. Estate workers no longer dismounted from their bicycles when a dorai, or planter, passed by.

In short, unions concern went beyond limited industrial relations matters or employee-employer matters concerning work rights and working conditions.

The British colonial government wanted to crush this development, and the ever-strengthening labour movement decided to “reconstruct” the organised labour movement in Malaysia and Singapore.

While the Singapore Trade Union Adviser, SP Garett, allowed the Singapore GLU (SGLU) to re-organize as a federation and operate legally without registering which led to the formation of the Singapore Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) in August 1946.

In Malaya, however, the then Trade Union Adviser John Alfred Brazier did not want the same for Malaya – he did not want the PMGLU to be recognised or continue to exist.

Brazier ruled that all the branch unions had to register, and that thereafter there be no relationship between any of the newly registered unions with the PMGLU (that later came to be known as the PMFTU). The registered unions were not allowed to seek guidance or remit funds to PMFTU. This created problems for the PMFTU, that ultimately led to its demise.


The Trade Union Ordinance required the registration (or re-registration) of trade unions according to sector or industry, and this allowed the government to deny registration to unions they considered strong, unacceptable or “militant unions”.

Until the proclamation by the British colonial authorities of a state of emergency in Malaya and Singapore in 1948, most of the plantation trade unions and federations of plantation trade unions in Malaya were affiliated with the PMFTU.

It is of interest that the British may have considered the PMFTU a bigger threat than even the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), for the PMFTU was outlawed even before the CPM was.

The influence of the Trade Union Adviser

Another method that was employed by the British, was to try and influence the trade unions, and to this end in 1945, a British trade unionist, John Alfred Brazier, was appointed by the government as Trade Union Adviser.

English-educated middle-class individuals were groomed and trained to replace the then existing progressive worker leadership of trade unions. One of the targeted unions were the plantation worker unions.



The government-appointed trade union adviser’s objective was not to strengthen, but rather, to weaken the labour movement in Malaya. This included eliminating the labour movement’s role in the political, socio-economic and cultural lives of the nation, and narrowly restricting its activities to “industrial relations”, that is the disputes between employers and workers.

This was an unnatural development, as workers are also citizens and humans who live in the country. Who wins the federal, state and local government elections is material – the wrong people and parties may mean anti-worker and anti-trade union policies and laws.

This restriction led to further erosion of worker rights and the power of negotiation for better terms. If the price of water, basic amenities, and the cost of living go up, it also has a direct impact on the lives of workers and their families. To bar unions and workers from taking up or speaking on such issues was absurd.

It must not be forgotten that workers and their unions had played a very significant role in the struggle for independence of Malaya from the British colonial government. They also played a significant role in developing the Constitution of Malaya - now Malaysia.

The PMFTU, Clerical Unions of Penang, Malacca, Selangor and Perak, and the Peasant's Union were a part of the All-Malayan Council of Joint Action (AMCJA), with Tan Cheng Lock as chairperson and Gerald de Cruz as Secretary-General, who actively campaigned on matters concerning the Malaysian Constitution.



It must be reiterated that what the British did to the trade unions in Malaysia was contrary to the accepted position and role of trade unions in England. To this day, trade unions in the United Kingdom continue to play an active role in the political life until today, being still very much affiliated to the Labour Party.

The manner in which the British treated the labour movement in Malaya and Singapore was not at all the same the way they treated their own labour movement in Britain.

In Malaysia, the object was clearly “union busting” for the benefit of employers and businesses, most of which were British-owned or controlled.

Other laws to suppress labour movement

Besides the new labour laws, the British colonial government also used other laws to suppress or carry out “union busting”.

In 1947, the ordinary trespassing law was used to keep union organisers from meeting and speaking with workers in plantations.

For instance in late March 1947, a large police force came to the Dublin estate in Kedah to arrest a federation of trade unions official for trespassing as he was speaking to a group of workers there. When the workers closed ranks around the official, the police opened fire, killing one worker and wounding five.


In a clash between police and workers at the Bedong estate on 3 March 1947, 21 workers were injured; whereby "the strike leader died of injuries received at the hands of the police a few days later". 61 of these workers were charged and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

The existing law then was that workers could not be terminated just for exercising their right to strike, which was a worker’s right. But in October 1947, the Supreme Court ruled in a case involving three rubber tappers that striking was a breach of contract and that the dismissal was justified. This was a major change of law and policy.

Unionists were also convicted for intimidation. In November 1947, S Appadurai, vice-president of the Penang Federation of Trade Unions and chairperson of the Indian section of the Penang Harbour Labour Association was charged for having written to an employer warning him against using “backlegs”.

“Backlegs” are persons who act against the interests of a trade union by continuing to work during a strike, or taking over a striker's job during a strike. In law then and before this, it was wrong for employers to use “backlegs” when workers are on strike. However, in this case, the said union leader was found guilty and sent to prison.

In January 1948, K Vanivellu, secretary of the Kedah Federation of Rubber Workers Unions was charged for having written to an employer asking him to reinstate 14 workers who had been dismissed for striking and suggesting that if he did not, the remaining workers might leave their jobs.

Hence, various other laws and the courts were also used wrongly, for the purpose of “union-busting” pursuant to the new British policy of weakening the labour movement in Malaysia.

New amendments to the Trade Union Ordinance

The Trade Union Ordinance of 1940 was again amended to weaken unions. New amendments to the Trade Union Ordinance were passed by the Federal Legislative Council on 31 May 1948. The amendments were in three parts.

The first stipulated that a trade union official must have at least three years of experience in the industry concerned.

The second prohibited anyone convicted of certain criminal offenses (notably intimidation and extortion, which were common charges against unionists) from holding trade union office.

The third stated that a federation could only include workers from one trade or industry.

As Michael R Stenson said in his 1969 book, “Repression and Revolt: the Origins of the 1948 Communist Insurrection in Malaya and Singapore”, the first provision was seen as "a measure designed to exclude educated 'outsiders'”.

It also created problems because many workers worked in different industries and sectors, as work available during that time was not permanent, and had more of a seasonal or transient nature.

It was similar to what is happening now, with the use of precarious short-term contracts, where after the end of contracts, workers have no choice but to find another job, which more often than not is in a different industry and sector.

The third part that insisted that a federation could only include workers from one trade or industry effectively killed the PMFTU and even the SFTU. This divided private sector workers further, and it also affected public sector workers, because it prevented workers from different sectors and industries from coming together and fighting for better rights and common issues.

PMFTU outlawed in June 1948

On 12 June 1948, the British colonial government finally outlawed PMFTU. This is interesting considering the fact that the Malayan Communist Party and other left-wing groups were only made illegal later in July 1948.

Can we say that for the British colonial government, the bigger concern or threat was the labour movement and unions - not the Communist party?  

Many of the leaders of the labour movement were arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced. SA Ganapathy, for example, who was the first president of the 300,000-strong PMFTU, was hanged by the British in May 1949.


He was said to be on the way to the police to surrender a firearm he found, when he was arrested by the 
police and sentenced to hang in Pudu Jail.

The birth of the Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC)

Effectively, the British colonial government succeeded in crushing the labour movement in Malaya. With the requirement of registration, and the powers vested in the Registrar of Trade Unions, the government could now eliminate the stronger “troublemaker” trade unionist and trade unions, and break up the labour movement according to sectors/industries – divide and rule.

In January 1949, there only remained 163 registered trade unions with a total membership of only 68,814. In comparison, PMFTU had a membership of about 263,598 – which represented more than 50 percent of the total workforce.

The Council of Trade Unions was formed. It organised the Conference of Malayan Trade Union Delegates from 27 to 28 February 1949, and this gave birth to what is today known as the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC).

Now, since the amended new trade union laws prohibited the formation of trade union federations from different trades, sectors and industry, MTUC could not be registered as a trade union or a federation of trade unions, and had to be registered under the Societies Act as a society.

After Merdeka: The oppression continues

On 31st August 1957, Malaya got its independence from the British, but alas, the position of the new Umno-led coalition government that ruled since then until now did not differ much from their past British colonial masters.

Malaysia may have gained independence, but workers and trade unions continued to be denied independence.

They continued to be oppressed and suppressed, by the Umno-led government – who adopted and continued the British “divide and rule” policy and laws, and the restrictions and control with regard to trade union activities, trade union funds and even trade union leadership restrictions.

The struggle for Malaysian independence took many forms ranging from armed struggle to diplomatic negotiations, and for some the handing over power to the Umno-led coalition was not real independence, and some continued to struggle on.


The Umno-BN government and some leaders continue to be confused as to whom we were fighting to gain our independence from – the British or the Communist Party of Malaya (and others).

Members of the police and military serving the British colonial government are shockingly still seen as “heroes of independence”, and the recent invitation of 31 British army veterans to participate in the 2017 Independence Day celebration highlights this continued confusion.

Some suggest that the British choice in handing over power to the Umno-led coalition, a “friend”, was basically to ensure the protection of British-owned companies and assets, and the continued flow of resources and profits from Malaysia to Britain.

All these may not matter, as we now accept that Malaysia is an independent state. What matters is that workers, unions and the labour movement continue to be oppressed and/or stifled even many years after independence.

The role and influence of the labour movement in socio-economic and political life and future of the nation continues to be slowly eroded as the current government’s policy is perceived to be pro-businesses and employers.

A greater concern seems to be to ensure smooth unhindered operation of business and profits, something that may not change soon as the government too now are employers in the growing number of government-owned and/or controlled private businesses.


This article was first published by Aliran here. Malaysiakini has been authorised to republish it. - Malaysiakini, 18/11/2017

The last breath of the labour movement?(Part 4)

$
0
0

The last breath of the labour movement?

Published:     Modified:

This is the final part of a series on the Malaysian labour movement.

FEATURE | Malaysia continues with its “divide and rule” policy with the labour movement, permitting only unions based on occupation, sector and industry, and disallowing the formation of unions or federations across different sectors.

Private and public sector workers alike are still prevented from belonging to common unions. The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) and the Congress of Unions of Employees in the Public and Civil Services (Cuepacs) continue to be registered as societies.

The justification for the control of unions and labour rights is “competitiveness,” or the need for Malaysia to attract foreign investors to set up factories, and hence create jobs and income.

Low wages and a passive workforce make Malaysia attractive, and the fact that there have been no mass strikes for almost four or more decades is seen as a positive.

Such justifications may be good for businesses, but it certainly is not helping workers. Their wages remain low, and their rights continue to be eroded. A perusal of laws will see that the Umno-BN government has been continuously eroding worker rights through various amendments of existing laws, and even a handful new laws.

Worker rights education is also not a priority, and is absent from the curriculum. Hence, many workers are not even aware of existing rights in Malaysia, and more importantly, how they can claim it.

The government does not seem to be bothered as well with the inspection and enforcement of labour and trade union rights, except maybe for occupational safety and health rights (photo).



The Human Resources Ministry’s statistics on employment and labour, for instance, provide no figures of the number of inspections and enforcement actions concerning labour rights, save for matters concerning occupational safety and health, even though the law permits authorities to do so.

This would suggest that Malaysia may not even be interested in protecting existing worker and trade union rights. These inspections must be done randomly, and/or based on information received on alleged violations.

To not act until victims to lodge formal complaints – particularly in the Malaysian labour context, where many employees are easily terminated if they lodge complaints – is unreasonable.

'Unions remain weak'

Union busting continues. Union presidents and leaders are easily terminated for issuing public statements. Union members are terminated for sending memoranda to election candidates to get them to commit to the struggle for better worker rights.

Workers participating in legal pickets are arrested for “making noise.” Union registration and “recognition” processes are delayed, not expedited – not just by government bodies, but also by allowing drawn-out litigations initiated by employers.

Malaysia finally introduced its minimum wage in 2013, which was bumped up to RM1,000 (Peninsular Malaysia) and RM920 (East Malaysia) per month in 2015.

The figure is absurd when the government itself acknowledges that families with a household income of less than RM4,000 per month are in need of BR1M assistance (logically, assuming a family unit has two income earners, the minimum wage should really be set at RM2,000).

But even here, there were not only implementation delays granted to employers, but also a lack of enforcement against errant employers who refused to pay even the paltry figure.

Unions remain weak. Mass layoffs of unionised workers in the thousands are met with muted protests, if any, such as in the case of Malaysia Airlines. 

The labour movement in Malaysia has been weakened successfully. The reasons are not just laws and government policies, but also weak, fearful union leaders and members cowed into submission.

The unwillingness of workers and unions to stand for their rights and fight for better worker and trade union rights is a major problem – no struggle will mean no improvement. To depend solely on the government to bring about improvements for rights is foolish, especially when its victims fail to highlight abuses in the first place.

As noted previously, Malaysia’s worker and trade union laws fall short of existing international standards, which became evident when even the now-defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) – which could have in theory overruled existing labour laws – set improved labour rights as one of its provisions.



It is perhaps good that some countries, as a matter of policy and law, have adopted policies that they will not enter into trade agreements with countries that do not at the very least have a minimum standard of human and labour rights.

The government claimed that it would review existing labour laws to bring it in line with TPPA provisions, even if the deal is no more. But this has not as yet been carried out.

It is also confusing and somewhat embarrassing that some trade union leaders in Malaysia still consider trade union adviser John Alfred Brazier, a tool used by the British to carry out union busting in the 1940s, as the “father” of trade unionism in the country.

On a positive note, some unions have of late gone beyond just focusing on employer-employee issues into addressing other pressing socioeconomic, politic and cultural issues affecting the nation – like the increase of cost of living brought about by the introduction of the goods and services tax, as well as kleptocracy and corruption scandals that have impacted the economy of the country.

MTUC and other trade unions have also in the past endorsed and campaigned for some candidates contesting in general elections, which even saw the Umno-BN government reacting by temporarily removing 

MTUC from its position as the representative workers’ body at the International Labour Organization (ILO).

What next?

There will always be risks in the struggle for rights. The question now is what Malaysian workers and trade unions are willing to do.

Remain in the shadows, as desired by the then British colonial government, and the present Umno-BN government? Or will they wake up and fight for better worker and trade union rights, and cause the re-emergence of a strong labour movement?

Without highlighting wrongs, violations, issues and concerns, the struggle for better rights will not be known to others, meaning there will be no pressure on the government and employers to protect and improve labour rights in Malaysia.

Failing this, the election manifestos and policies of political parties may one day not even contain any commitment to the improvement of rights and the strengthening of the labour movement.

If 100,000 Felda settlers and their families can quite rightly make their welfare a major national concern, why not the 14.5 million workers in a country of 31 million? We do not just have the power to change the course of the labour movement, but also to shape the future of Malaysia.


This article was first published by Aliran here. Malaysiakini has been authorised to republish it. - Malaysiakini, 19/11/2017

UEC - Is the The Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) being discriminatory?

$
0
0
To be a lawyer, we really should just be looking at the Law Degree that one holds. Is it recognized or not? 

Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) - well, that is not a University Degree. It is like our Malaysian Sijil Pelajaran(SPM) Malaysia.

Nationalism - we only recognize the SPM - and not any other? Well we are also recognizing A-levels, which is a requirement for admission in foreign universities like in England, Australia, etc... (Well, many of this foreign universities do not recognize our SPM, do they?And, why is this? Is it because our SPM is not up to par...?)

Likewise, the UEC is a recognized requirement for Universities in Singapore, Taiwan, etc..So, if we recognize the A-levels, why are we not recognizing the UEC, when foreign Universities are recognizing it, and admitting students(Malaysian students) into the law degree programmes.

So, why is the  Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) being discriminatory - remember most foreign degree holders (that is recognized in Malaysia) cannot become a lawyer unless they sit and pass the Certificate of Legal Practice... that is the pre-requisite before you can be a lawyer in Malaysia.

Well, Malaysia is now allowing foreign lawyers to practice in Malaysia - Do they have SPM?

The problem now is that lawyers from local Universities do not have to take and pass the Certificate of Legal Practices, and the standards in local Universities is not what it was before. There is a need for a Common Bar Exam(or the CLP for all) so that only those of a certain standard are allowed to practice. Lawyers provide professional legal services for the public, and as such, there is the need to maintain standards.

It was rather sad that it was the President of the Malaysian Bar that was reported making the statement on behalf of  Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) about this UEC matter..,Cause the Malaysian Bar has much higher standards and principles, and would most likely oppose positions that are seen to be discriminatory. I am sure that the Malaysian Bar position would be different...

UEC - if the concern is about the grasp of Bahasa Malaysia and English, then make it a requirement that one is expected to pass the Malay and English test - and this should maybe be a different test/certificate. Those who have already passed their SPM Bahasa Malaysia and English could be excluded.



‘Decision against UEC applies to all CLP candidates’

George-Varughese-uec

PETALING JAYA: The decision not to recognise the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) as an entry requirement for the Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) exam applies to all students, says Malaysian Bar president George Varughese.

Speaking to FMT, he said the decision of the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) “binds every law 
student who wants to take the CLP exam, regardless of where they are from”.

Varughese, a current member of the LPQB, was asked to respond to concerns raised by the Advocates Association of Sarawak (AAS) on whether East Malaysian UEC holders would be affected by the board’s 2005 decision.

AAS Sibu branch chairman David Kuok had told FMT that he wanted to hear the board’s official stand on the issue, following remarks from former Malaysian Bar president Khutubul Zaman Bukhari, who said the LPQB could not impose its decisions outside the peninsula.

“The statement by this ex-president seems to be a personal decision, and I want to know whether his statement reflects the board’s stand,” Kuok said.

Khutubul Zaman had said there was no reason for AAS or the Sarawak United Peoples’ Party (SUPP) to be upset as the LPQB had no power in Sabah and Sarawak.

When asked if the board would review the 12-year-old decision, Varughese said he had asked for the issue to be discussed at LPQB’s next meeting in December.

According to a notice on the board’s website, the decision against recognising the UEC as equivalent to SPM or STPM was made in 2005. Those who wish to sit for the CLP need at least two pass grades in the STPM or A-Levels.

The board is composed of the attorney-general, the Malaysian Bar president, two judges and an academic nominated by the government.- FMT News, 22/11/2017


Top universities accept the UEC


Nation; Sunday, 15 Nov 2015



MORE than 800 universities in the world open their doors to UEC students (as long as their academic results meet the entry requirements), according to the latest compilation by the Dong Zong (United School Committees Associations of Malaysia).

Among the top-ranking institutions that recognise the senior UEC are the California Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Oxford University, University of Cambridge, University of Toronto, University of Tokyo, National University of Singapore, University of Hong Kong, University of Melbourne, Peking University and Kyoto University.

“Based on The Times Higher Education World University Rankings Top 200 of 2014, more than 70 of these world-class universities have accepted the enrolment of UEC graduates to pursue tertiary education in their universities,” says Dong Zong in an internal report on “Access to Higher Education with UEC Qualification”, made available to Sunday Star.

The United Examinations Certificate (UEC) is a standardised examination conducted by the Dong Zong in the country’s 60 Chinese independent secondary schools. After studying for three years, students will sit for the junior UEC exam, and after six years, they will sit for the senior UEC exam.

In another report on the whereabouts of senior UEC leavers after they sat for their examination in 2013, the Dong Zong report says that out of 8,088 Chinese secondary school graduates, a total of 6,235 students, or 77.16%, chose to pursue further studies.

Among those seeking higher education, 3,017, or 48.39%, enrolled in local colleges and universities while 2,895, or 46.43%, went to universities overseas.

Within Malaysia, most UEC students are in private institutions and branch campuses of foreign universities.

Only two UEC graduates managed to get into local public universities.

Among foreign countries, Taiwan took in the largest number of UEC students with Singapore ranking second.

The other favourite destinations of the 2013 batch were Australia, Britain, and China.

The Dong Zong says this report tracing UEC students is the outcome of a survey carried out from June to November 2015.

Judges Discretion to Not sentence to Death ONLY if Prosecutor Allows?

$
0
0


Media Statement – 24/11/2017


JUDGE’S DISCRETION TO NOT IMPOSE DEATH PENALTY ONLY IF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GIVES CERTIFICATION IS WRONG

Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017 Meant To Abolish Mandatory Death Penalty And Return Sentencing Discretion To Judges Has Too Many Flaws

MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) welcomes the fact that the Bill to amend Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which has the mandatory death penalty, to now give judges discretion in sentencing, that will allow the imposition of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty has finally been tabled in Dewan Rakyat(House of Representatives). The said Bill, the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017, which has taken a long time, was finally tabled in Parliament on 23/11/2017 for the first reading.

SENTENCING DISCRETION TO JUDGES ONLY WHEN THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ALLOWS IT
 
MADPET is disappointed that discretion when it comes to sentencing those convicted for the offence drug trafficking (Section 39B) is not going to be given to judges in all cases.  Judges will only get the discretion to impose a sentence other than the death penalty, only if and when the ‘Public Prosecutor certifies in writing to the Court, that in his determination, the person convicted has assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia.’(Section 2(b) of the Amending Act)

Rightly, it must be Judges and the courts that consider and decide whether one has ‘assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia’.

Before sentencing, judges will usually hear and consider submissions of both the prosecution and the convicted person, and then impose an appropriate sentence. Thus, the question, of whether there was assistance or not could be included as one of the listed matters that should be considered by the Judge before he decides and pronounce the sentence. Some may have no information or very little information, or maybe that information and/or assistance will not help disrupt drug trafficking activities. As, such this really should be for the judge to decide, and maybe should be a point to be considered before sentencing. There may be also other relevant considerations of safety of oneself and/or family as many of these drug kingpins may threaten to cause harm, and Malaysia may not yet be ready to provide the requisite protection to the accused family and loved ones.

It is wrong to give the Public Prosecutor the power to decide who dies and who may live. Remember, that he is also responsible for prosecution in a criminal trial, and the power to the Public Prosecutor to give or not give the written certification is most dangerous. It may also undermine the right to a fair trial.

Now, according to the proposed amending Act, if the Public Prosecutor does not provide this ‘certification’, judges would have no choice but to impose the death penalty. This mandatory requirement for such a ‘certification’ by the Public Prosecutor must be deleted.

NO REVIEW OF DISCRETION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO PROVIDE CERTIFICATION

Further, it is stated in the proposed amendments that, ‘The determination of whether or not any person has assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities shall be at the sole discretion of the Public Prosecutor and no action or proceeding shall lie against the Public Prosecutor in relation to any such determination done by him in good faith, in such capacity’.

Well, that suggests that no one may be able to question or challenge the correctness of the Public Prosecutor’s decision – not even the courts by way of Judicial Review. This invites the possibility of miscarriage of justice, because if there is no required ‘certification’ by the Public Prosecutor, then the said convict will be sentenced to death.

Judicial Review is an essential ‘check and balance’ especially in a Democracy. One should be able to move the court to review even the decisions of the Public Prosecutor. Further, as it is Public Prosecutor, who decides whether to prosecute or not, this issuance or issuance of this ‘certification’ maybe for the wrong reasons, possibly even to ensure that the prosecution wins the case.

The power and discretion when it comes to sentencing must always rest with Judges alone. The existence of appeals to higher courts, helps ensure that there be no errors.

800 OR MORE ALREADY CONVICTED ON DEATH ROW WILL STILL BE EXECUTED?

In March, Minister Azalina said that according to Prison Department statistics, there are almost 800 prisoners on death row for drug trafficking offences under Section 39(B) (Star, 24/3/2017). These would all be persons already convicted.

The new proposed amendments, however, will not help any of these persons, whose trial is over and they have been convicted and sentenced.

The proposed amendment, in Section 3(2) of the proposed Amending Act, states very clearly that new amendments, when it comes into force, will only be used for persons who ‘…has not been convicted under section 39B…’. This means that all 800 or more on death row for drug trafficking will still be executed, unless they are pardoned by the King and/or rulers.

As such, MADPET urges that the sentence of all 800 or more persons currently convicted and on death row be immediately commuted to imprisonment.

MANDATORY SENTENCES CONTINUE TO EXIST

Even with the amendment, there still will be mandatory sentences – Death(if the Public Prosecutor Does Not Certify), and when there is certification, then judges can impose either Death or Imprisonment for Life(plus whipping of not less than 15 strokes). There is no discretion given to judges to impose a lower prison term, but judges seem to have the discretion to order whipping of more than 15 strokes.

With regard persons being tried under Section 39B Drug Trafficking, we know that many of them may have had the drugs for various different reason, knowingly or unknowingly, and some maybe out of desperation because of poverty.

We know that section 37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act states that “…any person who is found in possession of-(i) 15 grammes or more in weight of heroin;(ii)… otherwise than in accordance with the authority of this Act or any other written law, shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to be trafficking in the said drug.” This and other similar legal presumptions shift the burden of proof to the accused person, and it is most difficult for an accused person, more so if he/she is poor, to prove that the drugs found did not belong to him/her.

Should a ‘fool’ who made one mistake be sentenced to death or life in prison. A mandatory life sentence is also grossly unjust. Judges should be given real discretion even with regard to the length of imprisonment, and as such a mandatory life sentence also needs to be reviewed, and judges should have the discretion to impose lower sentence. There should be lower prison sentences for first time offenders, and higher for repeat offenders. We should be emphasizing rehabilitation rather than a ‘lock them up and throw away the key’ policy.

WHAT ABOUT OTHER MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY OFFENCES?

Malaysia have been studying the abolition of the death penalty, and to date we are only seeing action with regard the drug trafficking. There are so many other offences that provide for mandatory death penalty including crimes that do not result death and/or grievous hurt to victims.

Malaysia needs to speed up at least the abolition of the mandatory death penalty for all offences, and returning sentencing discretion to judges.

MADPET calls


a)    That discretion when it comes to sentencing should be with judges. The proposed pre-condition before a judge can exercise judicial discretion in sentencing, being the written certification by the Public Prosecutor that the convicted  has ‘assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia’ should be deleted. Such conditions are unacceptable;

b)    That the death sentence of the 800 or over persons on death row for drug trafficking(section 39B) be forthwith commuted to imprisonment;

c)    That Malaysia speed up its efforts towards the abolition of the death penalty, especially the mandatory death penalty for all offences;

d)    That Malaysia impose a moratorium on executions pending abolition of the death penalty.


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

Public prosecutor granted ‘too much power’ over life and death, says human rights group (Malaysian Insight)

$
0
0

Public prosecutor granted ‘too much power’ over life and death, says human rights group 


Bede Hong
A HUMAN rights group is critical of an amendment to the law governing the death penalty, saying it gives too much power to the public prosecutor over the judge in determining who deserved to be sentenced to death.

Yesterday, the bill for the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017 was passed in Parliament, amending Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which pertains to the death penalty. The new law allows the judge to exercise discretion in meting out life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, which was previously mandatory for those convicted of drug trafficking. 

However, a clause states that the judge may impose a sentence other than the death penalty, only if and when the "public prosecutor certifies in writing to the court, that in his determination, the person convicted has assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia."

"It is wrong to give the public prosecutor the power to decide who dies and who may live," Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) coordinator Charles Hector said in a statement today. 

"Remember, that he is also responsible for prosecution in a criminal trial, and the power to the public prosecutor to give or not give the written certification is most dangerous. It may also undermine the right to a fair trial."

According to the proposed amending act, if the public prosecutor does not provide the certification, judges will have no choice but to impose the death penalty.  

Hector said the power of sentencing should rest with the judge alone. 

"The existence of appeals to higher courts helps ensure that there be no errors."

Before sentencing, the judge usually hears and considers the submissions of the prosecution and the convicted person to impose an appropriate sentence. 

"Thus, the question of whether there was assistance or not could be included as one of the listed matters that should be considered by the judge before he decides and pronounces sentence." 

"Some may have no information or very little information, or maybe that information and/or assistance will not help disrupt drug trafficking activities. As, such this really should be for the judge to decide and maybe should be a point to be considered before sentencing."

In a statement today also condemning the law amendment,  Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen said there was little guarantee that the law enforcement agencies and public prosecutor would not abuse such "unfettered and arbitrary power".

"It is basic that the act of prosecution is an executive function of the state and the office of the public prosecutor shall be strictly separated from judicial functions. Therefore it would be a serious miscarriage of justice if the prosecutor could also decide the mode of punishment, and all the so, the punishment of death," he said. 

By compelling judges to impose a life or death sentence based on the public prosecutor’s certification is an "unnecessary fetter" on their discretion and interferes with judicial independence and justice, Paulsen said. 

As of March, there are almost 800 prisoners on death row for drug trafficking offences under Section 39(B), according to Prison Department statistics.

Madpet has called for all death sentences to be commuted to imprisonment. It further calls on the government to impose a moratorium on pending executions and speed up efforts towards the abolition of the death penalty.– November 24, 2017.- Malaysian Insight, 24/11/2017



Peneroka FELDA - malas silap sendiri atau silap UMNO-BN?Polisi Pembangkang?

$
0
0

UMNO-BN failed - because the poor FELDA settlers who should by now become financially independent and able to live without anymore depending  on government(or FELDA) assistance seem to be still 'poor' with large debts? 

UMNO-BN gagal kerana penroka FELDA yang mula-mula miskin seharusnya kini sudah menjadi stabil dari segi kewangan and boleh hidup berdikari tanpa perlu bergantung kepada bantuan kerajaan(atau FELDA) nampaknya masih lagi 'miskin' dengan hutang besar?

Is the Opposition party just intending to simply take over from UMNO-BN, and keep the FELDA settlers poor and still dependent on government - or will there be change? Again the Opposition seems to be concerned about failings of FELDA/Government and the alleged injustices suffered...

Adakah parti Pembangkang hanya mahu mengambil alih tempatUMNO-Bn, dan terus menurus mengekalkan peneroka FELDA dalam keadaan kemiskinan yang masih bergantung kepada kerajaan - ATAU adakah akan berlaku perubahan? Kini, nampaknya Pembangkang menumpukan perhatian kepada kegagalan FELDA/Kerajaan dan dakwaan ketidakadilan yang telah berlaku...

BUT what will the NEW policy of the Opposition for FELDA - will new groups of poor be given land, skill and assistance to overcome poverty and become financially stable and independent? Will it be for all poor or will it still be primarily for the Malay poor? Or are their only concern about this already existing about 112,000 Felda setlers and winning the General Elections? 

TETAPI apakah polisi BARU Pembangkang untuk FELDA - adakah mereka yang miskin akan sekali lagi diberikan tanah, skil dan bantuan untuk mengatasi kemiskinan dan menjadi stabil dari segi kewangan? Adakah program sedemikian jika dimulakan kembali untuk mereka yang miskin...atau masih untuk Melayu miskin? Atau adakah keprihatinan mereka hanya untuk 112,000 peneroka FELDA dan keluarga sedia ada ...hanya untu menang PRU?

ARE FELDA SETTLERS TO BE BLAMED FOR THE PREDICAMENT SOME OF THEM ARE IN NOW?  

Haruskah Peneroka FELDA sendiri yang harus dipersalahkan untuk masalah yang sebahagian mereka kini alami?

Easy to blame FELDA and the UMNO-BN government for the indebtness that many FELDA Settler families are facing today. It maybe true that the UMNO-BN government may have had played a part in failing to make FELDA Settlers and their families independent, confident and self sufficient - but at the same time blame also lies in the FELDA Settlers and their families.. When people become free and independent of government, they are free to choose wisely. This is why in urban centres, often the UMNO-BN gets defeated during elections...but in rural areas, dependency, poverty and indebtness ensures the UMNO-BN victory in most cases.

Senang sekali kita menyalahkan FELDA dan kerajaan UMNO-BN untuk keberhutanga ramai keluarga peneroka FELDA hari ini. Ia mungkin benar kerajaan UMNO-BN telah memainkan peranan dalam kegagalan menjadikan peneroka FELDA dan keluarga yakin, berdikari dan boleh hidup tanpa bergantung kepada kerajaan. Apabila rakyat menjadi bebas dan kurang bergantuang kepada 'bantuan' kerajaan, mereka akan memikirkan sendiri dan akan arif memilih pemimpin dan kerajaan. Ini dapat dilihat di kawasan bandar, di mana kebanyakkan kali UMNO-BN akan tertewas dalam pilihanraya...tetapi dalam kawasan luar bandar, kemiskinan dan pergantungan kepada kerajaan semasa dan keberhutangan nampaknya akan memastikan kemenangan UMNO-BN(kerajaan semasa) dalam kebanyakkan kes.

There are 112,635 Felda settlers, not including their wives and children.

Yes, FELDA did come up with proposals that the settlers allow FELDA(or some FELDA company or some contractor) to do the clearing of old trees, the replanting...for a FEE(Price), and those who agreed would also be given monthly advances of RM1,500 for the entire duration. Now, all these 'Fee' and Advances had to be paid back. Sadly, the majority chose the easy way - hand over the work to FELDA(or its agents), and take the RM1,500 monthly allowances...

YA, dalam isu baru ini, FELDA memang ada memberikan pilihan (1) FELDA(atau syarikat FELDA atau kontraktor luar) akan mengambil alih kerja membersihkan pokok uang sudah tua dan kerja penanaman semula...untuk harga tertentu, dan mereka yang bersetuju juga akan diberikan 'advance' bulanan RM1,500 untuk jangkamasa(mungkin 3-4 tahun sehingga hasil mula keluar) lagi. Dan semua pendahuluan dan bayaran bulanan perlu dibayar balik. Sedih sekali, kebanyakkannya nampak memilih cara mudah - serah saja tanah/ladang kepada FELDA(atau ejen mereka) - dan ambil bayaran bulanan RM1,500-00

BUT a small percentage were smarter, they decided to do the clearing of the old trees and the replanting on their own, and not take this RM1,500 advance for living allowances. So they worked their land, and survived on their savings(or maybe even income from other work/sources) - That would have been how any non-FELDA small holder would have done when it comes to the time for clearing old trees and replanting.

Tetapi, sebilangan kecil lebih arif, mereka memilih kerja sendiri membersihkan pokok lama dan menjalankan kerja tanaman semula  dan juga tidak mengambil elaun kehidupan RM1,500-00. Justeru, mereka kerja sendiri, dan telah terus hidup bergantung kepada simpanan mereka(dan/atau pendapatan dari kerja/perniagaan lan/sumber lain). Inilah cara mana-mana mereka yang bukan peneroka FELDA di Malaysia akan lakukan bila perlu bersihkan pohoh lama dan menanam semula pokok baru.

Other smallholders and small business people, mostly without government loans or assistance, are able to survive and even prosper. It is all a question of good financial planning and savings. It is a question of smart spending - buying and spending according to your means, always making sure there is sufficient monies put aside for a rainy day. 

Kebanyakkan petani, pekebun kecil dan peniaga kecil, kebanyakkan tanpa apa-apa bantuan atau pinjaman kerajaan, dapat hidup dan juga tambah kaya. Ianya semua soal perancangan kewangan yang baik dan simpanan. Ianya adalah mengenai perbelanjaan pandai - beli dan belanja berasaskan hakikat sendiri, selalu memastikan cukup wang disimpan untuk hari-hari susah...

However, looking at the state of indebtedness of FELDA settlers and their families, this was not a lesson they learned - and they continued to depend too much on the government and FELDA. [See the experience of Bakar Hashim, who decided not to outsource the tree clearing and replanting, but did it himself - see below -No Felda, no problem, for Bakar).

Tetapi, jika melihat hakikat ramai peneroka FELDA yang berhutang, mereka nampaknya tak belajar cara perancangan kewangan dan keperluan simpan untuk masa tak ada hasil.(Mereka sudah berpuluh tahu berkecimpung dalam sektor perladangan). Mereka masih terlampau banyak bergantung kepada FELDA(kerajaan) - tengok contoh Bakar Hashim, yang telah memilih tidak 'outsource' kerja ladang sendiri tetapi kerja sendiri...

Instead, Bakar forked out RM15,000 to replant his four-hectare plot. That, he said, was much lower than the RM100,000 it would cost some of his friends who had signed on for the Felda replanting scheme.

Bakar said he cleared his plantation by poisoning the old trees and bought oil palm seedlings, which he paid labourers to plant, and later, fertilise. 

After three years, Felda paid him RM17,000 from the replanting fund and RM5,000 for removing the old trees.

Dependence on the Government and FELDA may have been an UMNO-BN strategy to keep the support of the FELDA community for the incumbent government - now UMNO-BN. 

Mengekalkan kebergantungan kepada Kerajaan dan/atau FELDA mungkin satu strategi UMNO-BN untuk mengekalkan sokongan lomuni FELDA kepada kerajaan sedia ada - kini UMNO-BN.

The government and/or FELDA cannot be said to have not given settlers choices - but may have encouraged outsourcing work on their individual small-holdings to FELDA and/or its contractors...and surely these companies/contractors that took up the jobs made profits.  

Tidak boleh dikatakan peneroka tidak diberikan pilihan oleh FELDA(kerajaan) - di mana kerajaan/FELDA mungkin ada mendesak atau mengumpan dengan janji elaun bulanan untuk peneroka FELDA jangan kerja sendiri tetapi 'OUTSOURCE'(suruh pihak lain buat kerja) kepada FELDA(atau syarikat FELDA/kontraktor) ...sudah pasti syarikat yang ambil buat kerja ada mengaut untung...

FELDA settlers were many, and they should have come together as settlers, to work together on their respective hectares of land - that would have saved money. Did they 'over-trust' FELDA and/or the government - choosing rather to outsource work on their land, rather that work it themselves.

Ramai peneroka FELDA - mereka boleh datang bersama untuk kerja bersama membersihkan ladang dan tanam semula - dan wang akan dapat disimpan. Adakah mereka terlalu percaya FELDA/kerajaan - memilih 'OUTSOURCE' kerja dan bukan kerja sendiri di atas tanah mereka. Kalau cuci kereta sendiri, tak ada bayaran - tapi kalau minta 'car wash' kena bayar RM8-10??

Remember FELDA is a government agency, and it has its own plantations to run - different from the hectares given to the individual settlers and their families.

Ingat FELDA adalah ejensi kerajaan, yang juga mempunyai ladang sendiri - ini berbeda dengan program peneroka yang peneroka diberi tanah beberapa hektar untuk tanam, dan mengaut keuntugan usaha mereka.

The government's role is bring development to the area - and this they did by the building of roads, schools, clinics, etc...

Peranan kerajaan adalah untuk membawa pembangunan kepada sesuatu kawasan - jalanraya, sekolah, klinik, dll...

Felda Settlers were also NOT 'locked-up' or not able to move ini and out of their Felda Settlemnents. Likewise, everyone could go and visit these FELDA settlers. They could easily discuss and get advice from others, not being those associated to FELDA or the government. They had access to information, advice, etc ...so when the settler chose to outsource work and end up in debt, who would we blame?

Peneroka FELDA bebas keluar masuk kawasan FELDA, dan orang luar boleh masuk bertemu peneroka FELDA. Senang sekali mereka berbincang dan mendapat nasihat daripada orang lain, bukan hanya bergantung kepada nasihat orang FELDA atau kerajaan. Akses maklumat, nasihat, dll ada - justeru bila peneroka sendiri memilih 'Outsource' kerja dan kini dalam keadaan keberhutangan - siapa yang harus dipersalahkan?

Now, for the purpose of the upcoming General Elections, there is much interest on FELDA - why was it not there before? But then there were always people from political parties, NGOs and others who may have given advice - but many FELDA settlers may have chosen to just trust FELDA and/or the government only...Who to blame? Many of FELDA settlers children have degrees and are educated...why were they not giving their parents good advice?

Kini, kemungkinan PRU tak lama lagi, banya minat mengenai FELDA - kenapa tidak ada sebegitu banyak minat sebelum ini? Tetapi pada masa yang sama ada selalu mereka daripada NGO, parti politik dan yang lain yang mungkin telah memberikan nasihat - tetapi mungkin ramai peneroka FELDA hanya pilih percaya dan dengar nasihat FELDA dan/atau kerajaan...Justeru, salah siapa? Ramai peneroka FELDA juga mempunyai anak yang ada ijazah universiti dan berpelajaran tinggi -mengapa mereka tidak berikan ibu bapa mereka nasihat baik?

What then is the position of the Opposition parties on FELDA - are they simply promising to continue the UMNO-BN way and keep settlers dependent and loyal to their political parties...or will they encourage independence, self-confidence...so that these settler communities will finally be 'debt-free' and able to survive on their own without any FELDA or government aid? or even Opposition politician assistance? Will they encourage the working on your land, or will they still encourage outsourcing to others to do the work? Working your own land is certainly cheaper...even if you have to hire your own workers, compared to outsourcing the work to FELDA or some private company/contractor.

Apakah posisi atau pendirian parti Pembangkang berkenaan FELDA - adakah mereka hanya janji ikut cara UMNO-BN dan memastikan peneroka bergantung kepada mereka dan setia kepada parti politik mereka...atau adakah mereka akan mengalakkan kepercayaan pada diri sendiri, berdikari - dan boleh hidup tanpa perlu lagi bergantung kepada bantuan kerajaan atau FELDA? Atau bantuan ahli politik atau parti politik? Adakah mereka akan mengalakkan buat kerja sendiri atas tanah sendiri ...atau adalah mereka akan mengalakkan 'outsourcing' kerja kepada syarikat/kontraktor? Kerja tanah sendiri adalah lebih murah dan tidak akan menyebabkan hutang terlampau...jika pun kena ambil pekerja sendiri, berbanding dengan 'outsourcing kerja kepada FELDA atau syarikat/kontraktor swasta yang lain.

The cause of the indebtness maybe the fault of the FELDA Settler themselves...and, the way forward is not to forgive the debt or the new government paying of the debt(or cancelling the debt) - This will be a bad lesson, and continue to generate 'dependence'...

Akhirkata, sebab keberhutangan mungkin salah peneroka FELDA sendiri...dan jalan kehadapan adalah untuk tidak memaafkan keberhutangan ini atau 'janji' kerajaan akan melupuskan hutang - Ini akan memberikan ajaran salah..dan atau memastikan 'kebergantungan' terus kepada...

The FELDA settler program was a good program, where the poor were given land, skills and assistance to enable them to escape poverty...will the Opposition re-start the program, and help more poor people. Of course, the settler will have to work hard...and not be lazy and simply outsource work..and take loans. The FELDA settlers need to have greater interaction with other farmers and small-holders, who continue to survive and prosper without any government assistance.

Program peneroka FELDA rancangan yang baik bila yang miskin diberikan tanah, skil dan bantuan untuk memastikan mereka melepasi/menangani kemiskinan..adakah Pembangkang akan memulakan semula program peneroka dan membantu lebih ramai orang miskin di Malaysia? Yang pasti, peneroka kena kerja keras...dan jangan malas dan senang-senang 'outsource' kerja dan ambil pinjaman. Peneroka FELDA harus mempunyai lebih interaksi dengan petani dan pekebun kecil, yang boleh hidup dengan baik tanpa apa-apa bantuan kerajaan...

The FELDA Settler Debt -

RM1,500 per month for 3 years = RM54,000

RM1,500 per month for 4 years = RM72,000

Cost of clearing their old trees, replanting and continuous monitoring(weeding/fertilizing) for 3 to 4 years = ? 

If the debt is only about RM100,000 - noting they were getting money every month doing nothing...is it reasonable?

HUTANG Peneroka FELDA

RM1,500 se bulan untuk 3 tahun = RM54,000

RM1,500 se bulan untuk 4 tahun = RM72,000

Kos pembersihan pokok lama, kerja tanam semula, kerja jaga tanah/ladang(potong rumput, racun, baja) untuk 3-4 tahun - adalah ini munasabah? 

DEBTS - How much debt do you have? Housing, Car, etc -RM100,000, RM200,000?

HUTANG - berapa hutang anda? Pinjaman Rumah, Kereta - RM100,000, RM200,000 atau lebih?

Thus, the indebtness of the FELDA Settlers, who it seem elected to outsource the removal of old trees, the replanting and their land until it started producing, and receiving advances of RM1,500 per month for about 3 years...The indebtness may not be the real issue that deserves too much attention when it comes to FELDA - Maybe, it was the failure of the UMNO-BN to develop 'independence' - and its questionable strategy of handing 'goodies', encouraging settlers to outsource work rather than doing it themselves...It would be most shocking if the some Felda Settlers, whilst waiting for their trees to produce just sat and received the advances - and did not try to generate alternative income whilst they waited. 

Justeru, hakikat keberhutangan peneroka FELDA yang nampaknya memilih 'outsource' kerja kepada FELDA atau kontraktor lain, sambil menerima 'advance' perlu bayar balik sebanyak RM1,500(yang nyata lebih daripada gaji minima) untuk lebih kurang 3 tahun bukan isu utama di FELDA. Isu utama adalah kegagalan policy dan cara UMNO-BN untuk menjana sifat berdikari - strategi memberikan 'kelebihan', memujuk peneroka untuk jangan buat kerja sendiri tetapi outsource kepada FELDA...Adalah menghairankan jika peneroka ini tak kerja dan/atau mendapat pendapatan lain dalam masa 3 tahun mereka duduk menunggu menerima RM1,500 sebulan...

FELDA settlers is just one group -m

Peneroka FELDA satu kumpulan - bagaimana pula dengan pekerja di Ladang Milik Felda - adakah mereka ditindas...adakah mereka menerima sekurang-kurang RM1,500 sebulan...atau mereka terima gaji minima sahaja? 

 

 

 

 

No Felda, no problem, for Bakar


Zulkifli Sulong
No Felda, no problem, for Bakar
Life is good these days for Bakar Hashim and his family in Felda Chini Timur Satu in Pekan, Pahang. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Hasnoor Hussain, November 21, 2017.
LOOKING back, Bakar Hashim is glad he did not go with the flow and take up Felda’s replanting scheme.

At a time when most of his friends in Felda Chini Timur Satu chose to  surrender the management of their smallholdings to Felda in return for replanting, Bakar stood firm as he felt something was not quite right about the agreement.

He thought the terms were fuzzy and could bind his children and grandchildren to debt.

Instead, Bakar forked out RM15,000 to replant his four-hectare plot. That, he said, was much lower than the RM100,000 it would cost some of his friends who had signed on for the Felda replanting scheme.

Bakar said he cleared his plantation by poisoning the old trees and bought oil palm seedlings, which he paid labourers to plant, and later, fertilise. 

After three years, Felda paid him RM17,000 from the replanting fund and RM5,000 for removing the old trees.

“As such, I didn’t lose RM15,000 by replanting but instead made a profit of RM7,000, and did not have to surrender my land to Felda to take part in its programme,” Bakar told The Malaysian Insight in Chini.

Felda Chini Timur 1 is one of the Felda settlements in the Pekan constituency, which MP is Prime Minister Najib Razak.
The 62-year-old settler said he turned down Felda’s offer to replant his plantation after speaking with his children.

Bakar said it was really a bit of luck that his son, Mohamad Hisommudin Bakar had attended the briefings about the replanting scheme.

Hisommudin, who was a university student activist, said what he heard did not make sense. Felda had told the settlers that they would surely fail if they tried to replant themselves and would only succeed if they went with Felda.

At the time, Hisommudin said, almost all of the 400 settlers in attendance had agreed with him, so much so that the Felda officers decided it was no use going on and called the meeting to an end.

After Hisommudin had returned to campus, however, Felda officers returned to persuade the settlers to sign up for the replanting scheme.

“In the end, only my father and 10 more settlers decided not to sign the replanting agreement and to work their own lands,” Hisommudin told The Malaysian Insight.

But people like his family were the minority and Hisommudin said only 5% of the settlers decided to do the work themselves. The rest took up  Felda’s offer.

Not following the herd

Hisommudin’s mother, Hawariah Mohamad, said it was hard work doing the replanting themselves. 

“Our house was filled with oil palm seedling. Even the neighbours would make fun of us. They used to ask us what the seedling were and I said they were snake fruit,” said Hawariah.

The snake fruit seedling resembles the oil palm seedling.
Hawariah also remembers the pressure on the family for not going with the herd.

“It was like Israel pressuring the Palestinians,” said the retired religious teacher.

Hisommudin said his father was tempted to give up many times 

“My father wanted to give up and let Felda take over. But we discussed it as a family, we asked him to hang on,” said the Ilham Centre executive director.

Reaping what he sowed

But all that hard work has paid off.  The family now hold their heads high in the village where they were once shunned for daring to rebel.

Bakar earns RM5,000-RM5,500 each month from the oil palms and he is debt free, to boot.

His fellow settlers who took up the replanting scheme, meanwhile, draw RM2,000 to RM3,000 a month. 

And, they owe Felda for replanting their land and for the living allowance the agency paid them. The debts run into the tens of thousands of ringgit.

Some have been receiving the monthly living allowance for 12 years. The living allowance is a loan or advance for the settlers that is supposed to tide them over until the new trees bear fruit, about three years after replanting.

These days, Bakar’s role is that of the plantation owner. He no longer does the heavy work and his youngest son supervises the workers, who are mainly from Indonesia and Bangladesh. 

Bakar has a small lorry to transport the oil palm bunches and has started rearing cows. He has 50 heads of cattle.

“With the cows and everything, my father earns around RM10,000 a month,” said Hisommudin.  – November 21, 2017, Malaysian Insight.

Indebted to Felda for life


Zulkifli Sulong
Indebted to Felda for life
Settlers in Felda Chini in Pekan, Pahang are spending their sunset years trying to repay the massive debt the government agency says they owe. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Hasnoor Hussain, November 21, 2017.
AFTER signing a deal to allow Felda to replant his plantation in 2004, Ahmad Hashim left Felda Chini 4 in Pahang in search of job opportunities. 

The 61-year-old returned to claim his land after three years, when they trees had reached maturity and began fruiting.

However, his application to take back the land was rejected as Felda claimed he still owed the government agency money, Ahmad told The Malaysian Insight.

“They estimated that the land would break even in five years. So I was told to wait first,” said Ahmad in Felda Chini in Pekan, the constituency of Prime Minsiter Najib Razak, whose home state is Pahang.

In 2012, Ahmad again met Felda management to get his land back, but was again turned away as the agency said he still owed money.

It was then that Ahmad began wondering how much he owed Felda for replanting and the RM1,500 allowance he was paid monthly,  and whether his plantation would ever yield enough to pay off the debt.

Former plantation manager Shariman Alang Ahmad said oil palms usually started producing in the fourth year, yielding six to nine tonnes of oil per hectare that year.

“The yield will then increase by three tonnes each year until the trees enter their eighth and ninth year. By then they should produce around 20 tonnes per hectare a year. The yields begin declining when the trees turn 20 years old,” said Shariman. 

The current price of oil palm is RM5,500 to RM6,500 per tonne. 

“We don’t know how much we owe Felda”

Ahmad said he had asked Felda for a financial report or balance sheet of his holdings. But the settler said he was pushed from place to place. 

“I want to know how much I still owed them and the yields of my land. Is that too much to ask?,” he said, expressing his disappointment over the Felda management in his area.

Another settler, Akhir Ahmad has run up a RM98,000 debt to Felda, six years after signing the replanting agreement.

“I am really shocked at the amount I still owed them. After six years, my debt is RM98,000. I’m so angry because Felda didn’t tell us it was going to be like this when we signed the agreement,” he said.

He said the debt was the accumulation of replanting costs and monthly living allowance Felda paid the settlers. 

“The problem is, they don't tell us the income generated from the land, after it starts producing yields,” he said. 

Tired of being left in the dark, he and other settlers gathered to meet Felda to talk about the replanting agreement and its impact to the settlers.

“We managed to get about 400 settlers together in 2010 and we discussed the issue with Felda officers,” said Akhir.

“I said what Felda was doing went against the vision of its founder, the late Tun Razak,” he said, adding that the settlers began efforts to reclaim their lands after the meeting. 

“In Felda Chini 4, which houses more than 400 settlers, there are about 100 settlers who are still allowing Felda to manage their lands.

“The rest have begun managing their own estates."

As a settler managing his own holdings, Ahmad said he earned RM4,500 to RM5,500 monthly. 

Perpetual debt

Felda Chini opened in 1978 and after 20 years, the yields declined and the trees had to be replanted. The settlers were given the option of Felda’s replanting scheme in 2004.

Most of the settlers had taken up the deal, which let Felda fully manage their holdings from replanting oil palm trees to pruning and harvesting the fruits. 

During the replanting period, settlers received a monthly RM1,500 living allowance that was to be repaid once their estates begin turning in a profit.

Ahmad said starting June, Felda no longer paid the settlers the RM1,500 living allowance. Instead, the sum the settler is paid is determined by the yield of his holdings.

Second generation Felda settler, Mohd Firdaus Salleh, 31, said his father, who took part in Felda's scheme, now earned RM2,000 to RM3,000 a month.

But Felda was deducting RM400 each month as repayment for the RM130,000 owed to the agency according to the replanting agreement. 

“How long will it take for us to repay the debt? Even after we inherit the land and after another round of replanting, we will still be in debt,” he said. – November 21, 2017, Malaysian Insight

The controversial contract that can cost BN the Felda vote


Zulkifli Sulong
The controversial contract that can cost BN the Felda vote
Felda settlers are burdened by crushing debt which is the result of a 15-year-old agreement they signed with Felda to replant their oil palm and rubber holdings. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, November 15, 2017.
ABOUT 15 years ago, tens of thousands of settlers signed a replanting agreement with Felda that activists claim has led to one of their biggest problems today – crushing debt.

That agreement is now being studied by the settlers’ children, activists, lawyers, and politicians who want to either challenge it in court or use it as fodder for their general election campaigns.

Some of the settlers and their lawyers allege that the agreement is lopsided.

Others are working with politicians in Pakatan Harapan to turn it into a defining issue that could sway the Felda vote which impacts 56 parliamentary seats in the peninsula – most of which are held by Barisan Nasional.

There are 112,635 Felda settlers, not including their wives and children.

“We are forming a committee to study this issue at the party level  before bringing it to the Pakatan Harapan presidential council,” said Amanah communications chief Khalid Samad.

Amanah, together with Bersatu, PKR, and DAP, form the PH alliance.

“We hope to go on a roadshow in Felda areas to explain the issue just like we did with the 1MDB (1Malaysia Development Bhd) financial scandal, and offer solutions,” Khalid told The Malaysian Insight.

One of the lawyers studying the agreement, Dr Zulqarnain Luqman said 95% of the settlers signed the contract with Felda so that the agency could replant the holdings.

Hisomuddin Bakar, the son of a settler in Felda Cini, Pahang, said each Felda settler owned a four-hectare oil palm or rubber plantation, and by the beginning of the millennium, many of those trees were too old to bear fruit or latex.

He said Felda crafted an agreement wherein settlers would relinquish management of their estates to the agency so that it could replant the land with new trees.

It took about three years to replant and for the trees to mature, during which the holdings did not produce yields. During this period, each settler was paid a living allowance of RM1,500 per month.

Former plantation manager Shariman Alang Ahmad said oil palms took about three years to reach maturity and produce fruit.

“The optimal fruit bearing age is between eight and nine years, and the yield usually goes down once the tree is over 20 years old,” said Shariman, who worked for a government-linked company.

"At the end of the three years, when the trees started to bear fruit, Felda continued to manage the settlers’ holdings including maintaining the trees and harvesting the fruit.

"Felda did not return their holdings to the settlers because it claimed the settlers needed to repay the cost of replanting which ran into hundreds of thousands of ringgit," Hisomuddin said.

Settlers were also told they needed to repay the living allowance they were paid during the three years.

Meanwhile, Felda continued to pay them RM1,500 per month while holding on to the holdings.

Settlers have claimed that their debts came up to over RM100,000 and that the agency could be collecting more than what it was owed.

“The question is, when are the settlers going to be done with the debt? Will it be passed on to their children and grandchildren?” said Hisomuddin.

One of the clauses of the agreement stipulates that the settlers may not, for any reason or under any circumstances, terminate the agreement until all debts and payments that are owed , including income advances, have been paid in full to Felda.

Zulqarnain, the lawyer, said the government needed to review the agreement.

“It is too much tilted in favour of Felda and burdens the settlers."

Another lawyer said the settlers were bound by their debt while the amount they owed was determined by the agreement which specified that the settlers’ estates be handed over to Felda until the debt is fully repaid while the settlers are bound to pay the cost of management and replanting.

The debt, said the lawyer who did not want to be named, could also be passed on to the settlers’ descendants. – November 15, 2017, Malaysian Insight.


Worker's access to justice. Courts decide not Minister, who blocked 31% cases reaching court?

$
0
0

A worker should be immediately allowed to file his case in the Industrial Court and/or Labour Court, and the court should proceed to hear the case immediately especially for wrongful dismissal cases where the worker is asking for his employment and income back. Everyone else can take their claim/dispute to court, why are workers being discriminated against.

Now, it takes a very long time before the matter goes to court, in the case of the MAS workers, it took 2 years ...and then the Minister did not even refer the matter to court. Justice demands that the courts(not the Minister or some officer) decides after listening to all the evidences, documentary and evidence from witnesses, before deciding. Now, Minister deciding without with giving the dismissed worker and the employer a right to be heard is ABSURD...

Minister of Human Resources had decided not to refer the claim of about 3,200 Malaysian Airlines(MAS) workers, alleging wrongful dismissal and claiming for reinstatement, to the Industrial Court – hence denying these workers the right for their claim of wrongful dismissal to be heard speedily and determined by the Industrial Court is grossly unjust. (Malaysiakini, 5/10/2017)
 

31.5%(10,016) workers denied access to Industrial Court in wrongful dismissal cases

If attempts at reaching an amicable settlement between the wrongfully dismissed worker and the employer fails - it must be immediately referred to the Industrial Court....BUT in Malaysia it is referred to the Minister who then decides which case to refer and which not to... There is No Right to Be Heard before the Minister - so the Minister's decision is based on the report send by the officer than conducted the failed conciliation attempt,... 
The revelation that between the period of 2001 and 2011, 10,016 workers in Malaysia who claimed wrongful dismissal(or 31.5%) were denied their day in the Industrial Court by the Minister of Human Resources who REFUSED to refer their cases to the Industrial Court is shocking...


What is even more shocking is the reasons the Minister gives for not referring these cases to the Industrial Court. The Minister, unlike the court, does not hear witnesses or  peruse documentary evidence... so, the decision not to refer is based on WHAT? Belief in an assertion of the employer... acceptance of an opinion of an officer who failed to amicably resolve the matter between employer and dismissed worker? ...
What were the reasons given by the Minister for not referring the case to the Industrial Court.
a) Because the worker was dismissed for misconduct
b) Because the Employer has shut down its business
c) Because the Worker was given the opportunity to return back to work But refused to come back to work
d) Because the worker had been terminated because the employment contract had come to an end
e) Because the worker had voluntarily stopped work under some Voluntary Separation Scheme(VSS), and then changed their mind after receiving payment.. 

When a worker takes the trouble to rush over to the Industrial Relations Department within 60 days from the date of 'wrongful dismissal' and lodge a complaint under section 20 claiming wrongful dismissal and demanding reinstatement, and thereafter coming for the attempts at 'conciliation', naturally one should assume that the worker genuinely believes that he/was was wrongfully dismissed...and has a valid case to justify the claim.

All the grounds of non-referral of the dispute to the Industrial Court by the Minister seems to be the very reasons that the Employer would have given for the termination of the worker's employment... These obviously are matters that the aggrieved worker is disputing, proven also by the very fact that the complaint itself had been lodged by the worker...
BUT, some may say that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Minister not to refer(or refer) to the Industrial Court can always file an application at the High Court to ask the court to do a judicial review of the Minister's decision...

Well, it is possible but for such an application, you need to get a lawyer and when an application is filed in the High Court, there is always the risk that if the worker were to fail in their application to the High Court, they may be ordered to pay COST to the employer - and this could very well be RM5,000, RM10,000 or even more... 

So, now a worker wrongfully dismissed would also have to raise money for lawyers and court proceedings.... and also face the risk of having to pay COST which really may be equivalent to 10 month's salary (RM5,000) or more - .... so naturally many a worker (especially those who earn lower wages)... will just walk away...and not bother to apply to the High Court when the Minister decides that the case would not be referred to Court. Justice is denied...and yet again, it is the worker that is the victim of this 'miscarriage of justice'...here being the right to have his/her claim heard and determined by an independent judge of the Industrial Court, the right to a fair and open trial...

[In the Industrial Court, what is good is that there is NO cost that the losing party would have to pay - and for poorer workers, this is a good thing and it helps make real 'avenues of justice' available in law for workers...] 
The section 20 IRA procedure is also ODD when there is an additional step that gives the Minister power to decide whether a case be referred to the Industrial Court or NOT. In other cases, once attempts to reach an amicable settlement fails - the matter is as of right referred to the Courts to resolved after hearing evidence of witnesses, considering documentary evidence and hearing legal arguments/submissions by both the worker and the employer. Rightfully, the Ministers involvement need to be extinguished... and after attempts at amicable settlement had failed, all cases must, as of right, be referred to the Industrial Court

This was an important matter that concerns rights of workers in Malaysia, but sadly it seems that most media (including also alternative media) failed to report on this matter, which was raised to the Minister of Human Resources in Parliament. The only report that I came across was a Bahasa Malaysia report carried by the Utusan Online, which is copied and pasted below. 



Sebanyak 31,714 kes tuntutan pekerja yang diterima Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan dari 2001 hingga 2011 gagal diselesaikan melalui proses rundingan.
 
Menteri Sumber Manusia, Datuk Seri Dr. S. Subramaniam berkata, daripada jumlah berkenaan, sebanyak 31.5 peratus atau 10,016 kes di bawah Seksyen 20 Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 itu tidak dirujuk ke Mahkamah Perusahaan berikutan pelbagai faktor.
"Antara sebabnya adalah pekerja diberhentikan kerja atas masalah salah laku, majikan telah menutup perniagaan dan pekerja diberi peluang untuk bekerja semula tetapi enggan berbuat demikian.
"Selain itu, perkara tersebut turut disebabkan pekerja diberhentikan kerana tamat tempoh kontrak, berhenti secara sukarela tetapi berubah fikiran menuntut bekerja semula dan telah menerima bayaran pampasan melalui Skim Pemberhentian Sukarela (VSS)," katanya menjawab soalan Khairy Jamaluddin (BN-Rembau) dalam sidang Dewan Rakyat hari ini.
Menurut Subramaniam, pekerja yang diberhentikan atas sebab-sebab seperti mengurangkan bilangan pekerja dan penstrukturan semula perniagaan wajib dibayar pampasan di bawah Akta Kerja 1955.
Katanya, bagi tuntutan untuk kembali ke pekerjaan asal, Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan boleh mengadakan rundingan damai di antara majikan dengan pekerja untuk menghasilkan penyelesaian.
Jelas beliau, sekiranya kes gagal diselesaikan secara rundingan, masalah tersebut dibawa kepada panel pakar sebelum diputuskan oleh pihak menteri sama ada wajar untuk dirujuk ke Mahkamah Perusahaan. - Utusan Online, 23/10/2012, 31,714 kes tuntutan pekerja gagal diselesaikan secara rundingan

Release Siti Noor Aishah Atam immediately(15 Groups) - Malaysiakini

$
0
0

Release Siti Noor Aishah Atam immediately

Published:     Modified:

LETTER | We, the 15 undersigned civil society organisations and groups, call for the immediate release of Siti Noor Aishah Atam, who was found guilty under Section 130JB of the Penal Code, and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment from the date of arrest on March 22, 2016.

The ruling is not only unjust, but is also seriously flawed.

Amongst others, there is a lack of mens rea (intention) in this offence - a flaw which was supposed to be remedied in an amendment, but which is yet to be done.

Secondly, classifying the possession of books - which are not even banned by Malaysia - as being "items associated with any terrorist group or the commission of a terrorist act" is grossly unjust.

Aishah was first arrested for the possession of 12 books associated with terrorism, and the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 was used, making bail unavailable. She remained in detention.
She was then charged and tried by the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, which acquitted her at the close of prosecution case without her defence being called on Sept 29, 2016.

The prosecution then applied to the High Court to be able to continue to detain her, pending the filing of an appeal.



However, on Sept 29, 2016, after being set free by the High Court, she was rearrested under the Prevention of Crime Act 29159 for allegedly importing IS flags into the country - a totally different charge from the one initially levied against her, which was being in possession of 12 books.

To date, Aishah has not yet been charged in court over the flags, which raises the question of whether the reason used to continue to detain her was even true.

After the Court of Appeal allowed the prosecution’s appeal on March 27 this year, and sent the case back to the High Court for the continuation of the trial, she continued to be detained under Sosma.

The following month, the High Court then found her guilty and sentenced her to five years in prison beginning from the date of her arrest. It was reported that some of these books were still not banned.

Her case is now being appealed.

Inadmissible evidence now admissible

Sosma allows for the sidestepping of practices and procedures set out in the Criminal Procedure Code, the Evidence Act 1950, and other relevant laws, all of which were put in place to ensure a fair trial.
In Aishah's case, Sosma was used to admit evidence, which would not normally be admissible under the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code in normal trials.

For instance, it was admitted that Aishah allegedly told the arresting officer that the books belonged to her. There were no witnesses to this alleged conversation. There was also no subsequent statement or records that such a statement was ever made to the arresting officer.

However, when Sosma was used, this questionable evidence was accepted as proof that all the things in the room, including the 12 books, belonged to her.

Bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the High Court continued the trial and asked Aishah to present her defence.

Section 130JB is defective

In brief, the offence as it is set out in section 130JB today just has too many inadequacies, and it would be unjust to charge someone like Aishah for the mere possession of books.
image: https://i.malaysiakini.com/1161/a14b307b247d61b56fa09e9632fa14a5.jpeg

Such laws can easily be abused or wrongly used by authorities against innocent people, and justice may not be done.

It was first revealed in the High Court judgment dated April 26, 2017, that there was a defect in section 130JB. This particular section, unlike the other offences in the new Chapter VI, had words like "knowing", "intentionally" and/or "having reason to believe," which clearly provided for the need of the mens rea.

The High Court in its judgment, also referred to the Hansard, and it was revealed that this defect was brought to the notice of a minister, who apparently acknowledged the inadequacy, and said that he would do the needful with regard to the missing element.

The minister in question assured that he would first raise the matter with the attorney-general before any possible subsequent amendment.

The indication was that the amendment would be done at a later time. But to date, there have been no amendments to Section 130JB, under which Aishah was charged, tried and convicted.

The second concern is whether books and articles should even be considered
items associated with any terrorist group or the commission of a terrorist act."

Naturally, firearms, explosive devices, and items that could be used to build bombs would be construed as "items," but the question remains if books, articles and other literary material that mentions and discusses "terrorist groups" or "terrorist acts" should be included.

It is the responsibility of all persons to fight against terrorism. As such, knowledge of the motivations and ideology of persons who resort to such violence is essential for everyone if they are to assist in combatting such ideologies.

But how can one argue or debate against such thinking if we are ignorant of the subject matter?

Hence, the act of a person reading or in possession of such literature must never be criminalised, as is happening now with Aishah.

However, if such books and literature are proven to be used for the purpose of recruiting others into terrorist groups or committing violent acts, then it may be made into a criminal offence.

It must be pointed out that incitement and/or preparation to commit an offence is already a crime in Malaysia, and as such, one needs to consider whether there is really any need to even have specific laws to deal with "terrorist acts" or "terrorism."

Likewise, the words "associated with" is rather vague. Would it also include books and material critical of or against the motivation and ideologies of terrorist groups or acts of terrorism?

In Siti’s case, one most disturbing fact was the fact that these books were not even banned by the government at the time.

In fact, it was revealed that some of the said books were obtained from a local distributor and are available for purchase in Malaysia.


We have not seen any action taken against the distributor and sellers. We have also seen no action by the Malaysian government to trace all who may be in possession of the books, many who are unknowing of their crimes as yet.

Will they all be one day arrested and charged under Section 130JB as well?

Aishah may be guilty of many other offences, but what matters here is if she is guilty of the offence that she is currently being charged for – the possession of the 12 books.

For other offences, she must be charged and tried separately. 

It is wrong and most unjust to convict and sentence a person for things that she may or may not have done that are different from the current charges, just because we, the police or the government think that someone is a "bad" person.

The right to a fair trial must be respected.

Hence, we call for:
  • The immediate repeal and/or removal of Section 130JB of the Penal Code, which is not only too vague, but is also unjust by reason of not requiring a mens rea to the said offence;

  • That pending the repeal or deletion of Section 130JB of the Penal Code, it should not be used again, and certainly not for simply being in possession of books;

  • The immediate release of Siti Noor Aishah Atam and all persons currently being detained, imprisoned and/or being tried for the Section 130JB offence;

  • That Sosma be repealed, and pending repeal, it will not be used to undermine the standards and requirements in the Evidence Act, Criminal Procedure Code and other relevant laws that have been put in place to ensure a fair trial;

  • That the Malaysian judiciary uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour.

Written on behalf of:

Aliran
Center for Prisoners' Rights Japan
Christian Development Alternative ( CDA), Bangladesh
Dutch League for Human Rights
Japan Innocence and Death Research Center
KL Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall - Civil Rights Committee
MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility (MPSR)
North South Initiative
Rescue Alternatives Liberia (RAL)
Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy
Women’s Criminal Justice Network
WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)
Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters- HRDP, Myanmar


The original full statement, that contains also extract of Hansard in Malay taken from the High Court judgment,  could be viewed here 

Flawed Section 130JB Penal Code must not be used pending repeal Release Siti Noor Aishah Atam in prison for possession of unbanned books? (15 Groups)

The first High Court Judgment which acquitted her at the close of the prosecution's case(which is in Malay) could be found here - Siti Noor Aishah Atam - Alasan Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi - Mahkamah Bebas Polis Tangkap Lagi Guna POCA??

The 2nd High Court judgment, after the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court judgment, which led to her conviction can be found in this post - Siti Noor Aishah Atam - dipenjarakan 5 tahun memiliki buku yang tidak diharamkan kerajaan. Kini di Mahkamah Rayuan?

 

 

 See earlier related posts, some of which are as follows:-

Siti Noor Aishah Atam - Release her, and Repeal section 130JB Penal Code?

Siti Noor Aishah Atam - victim of SOSMA, found Not Guilty by High Court, then re-detained under POCA?

Siti Noor Aishah Atam - Ditahan lagi di bawah SOSMA?

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

 

 

Sometimes the government listens - PP's green light before judge exercise discretion removed?

$
0
0

Human Rights Defenders can speak up and act, and the Media has the capacity of making these voices heard.Positive results can sometimes be achieved - and this is one of them when the government decided to amend the proposed law and return the full discretion when in comes to sentencing to judges - no more the need for 'discretion only if the Public Prosecutor gives the green light'. We await the tabling of these amendments to the Bill, which the Minister assured us will be done during the 2nd reading...

U-turn death penalty for drug traffickers


Gan Pei Ling
U-turn death penalty for drug traffickers
A clause in the Dangerous Drugs Bill (Amendment) 2017 allows public prosecutors to issue a written certification to convicted drug traffickers who helped enforcement authorities disrupt drug distribution activities in or outside the country. – EPA pic, November 29, 2017.
PUTRAJAYA today caved in to public pressure and will return full discretion to judges to mete out the death sentence to drug traffickers.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman Said said in a statement today the government will amend a controversial clause in the Dangerous Drugs Bill (Amendment) 2017.
“The government will carry out an amendment at the committee stage to Section 39B of Act 234 (Dangerous Drugs Act) to give full discretion to the judiciary,” she said. 
The Dewan Rakyat secretary has been notified about the amendment to the bill, which is expected to be tabled for second reading tomorrow, she said.
A clause in the original bill, tabled last Thursday, gave unprecedented powers to public prosecutors to issue a written certification to convicted drug traffickers who helped enforcement authorities to disrupt drug distribution activities within or outside of Malaysia. 
Judges could then decide whether to spare these convicts the mandatory death penalty
However, the judges would have no choice but to mete out the mandatory death sentence to convicts without a written certificate from prosecutors.
Various parties, including the Malaysian Bar, opposition MPs and human rights group Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture, have criticised the controversial clause over the past week, saying that it interferes with the judges’ sentencing power.
Azalina said the decision to amend the bill was made after taking into account the views and suggestions of all stakeholders to the government.
“This amendment demonstrates the government’s openness, especially the prime minister who always listens to views from various parties to ensure every policy decision is made inclusively,” she said.
Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali blamed the cabinet today for adding the caveat to give prosecutors the power to issue a written certification to convicted drug traffickers.
“My initial proposal was to give discretion to judges, that is, to pass a death sentence or otherwise. That was my principal advice.
“The certification (by public prosecutors) is another policy matter by the cabinet... I don’t have a say in it,” Malaysiakini reported him as saying. – November 29, 2017, Malaysian Insight
Malaysian Insight also carried MADPET's statement 

Public prosecutor granted ‘too much power’ over life and death, says human rights group 


Bede Hong
A HUMAN rights group is critical of an amendment to the law governing the death penalty, saying it gives too much power to the public prosecutor over the judge in determining who deserved to be sentenced to death.
Yesterday, the bill for the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017 was tabled in Parliament, amending Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which pertains to the death penalty. The new law would allow the judge to exercise discretion in meting out life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, which was previously mandatory for those convicted of drug trafficking. 
However, a clause states that the judge may impose a sentence other than the death penalty, only if and when the "public prosecutor certifies in writing to the court, that in his determination, the person convicted has assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia."
"It is wrong to give the public prosecutor the power to decide who dies and who may live," Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) coordinator Charles Hector said in a statement today. 
"Remember, that he is also responsible for prosecution in a criminal trial, and the power to the public prosecutor to give or not give the written certification is most dangerous. It may also undermine the right to a fair trial."
According to the proposed amending act, if the public prosecutor does not provide the certification, judges will have no choice but to impose the death penalty.  
Hector said the power of sentencing should rest with the judge alone. 
"The existence of appeals to higher courts helps ensure that there be no errors."
Before sentencing, the judge usually hears and considers the submissions of the prosecution and the convicted person to impose an appropriate sentence. 
"Thus, the question of whether there was assistance or not could be included as one of the listed matters that should be considered by the judge before he decides and pronounces sentence." 
"Some may have no information or very little information, or maybe that information and/or assistance will not help disrupt drug trafficking activities. As, such this really should be for the judge to decide and maybe should be a point to be considered before sentencing."
In a statement today also condemning the law amendment,  Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen said there was little guarantee that the law enforcement agencies and public prosecutor would not abuse such "unfettered and arbitrary power".
"It is basic that the act of prosecution is an executive function of the state and the office of the public prosecutor shall be strictly separated from judicial functions. Therefore it would be a serious miscarriage of justice if the prosecutor could also decide the mode of punishment, and all the so, the punishment of death," he said. 
By compelling judges to impose a life or death sentence based on the public prosecutor’s certification is an "unnecessary fetter" on their discretion and interferes with judicial independence and justice, Paulsen said. 
As of March, there are almost 800 prisoners on death row for drug trafficking offences under Section 39(B), according to Prison Department statistics.
Madpet has called for all death sentences to be commuted to imprisonment. It further calls on the government to impose a moratorium on pending executions and speed up efforts towards the abolition of the death penalty. – November 24, 2017, Malaysian Insight.
**Thereafter several human rights groups, including the Malaysian Bar, and even Opposition MPs raised concerns about the said Bill, being debated at the Dewan Rakyat(House of Representatives) in Malaysian Parliament.

GOVERNMENT REMOVES NEED FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTORS APPROVAL BEFORE JUDGE CAN EXERCISE DISCRETION IN SENTENCING DRUG TRAFFICKERS (MADPET - 7/12/2017)

$
0
0
Media Statement – 7/12/2017

GOVERNMENT REMOVES NEED FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTORS APPROVAL BEFORE JUDGE CAN EXERCISE DISCRETION IN SENTENCING DRUG TRAFFICKERS

Amendment to end mandatory death penalty for drug offences amended again

MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) welcomes the fact that the government has amended the Bill to amend Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which now provides for the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking. The Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017, as amended, was passed after the 3rdreading on 30/11/2017 at the Dewan Rakyat. 

This amending Bill has been amended to remove the earlier pre-condition of a Public Prosecutor’s written certification of assistance before judges had the discretion in sentencing, that will allow the imposition of the sentence of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. This amendment vide Dangerous Drugs(Amendment) Bill – Amendment in Committee(D.R.45/2017) amended the Bill entitled the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017.

After the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017, which was tabled in Parliament on 23/11/2017 for the first reading at the Dewan Rakyat(House of Representatives), a lot of groups and persons including MADPET(see Media Statement dated 24/11/2017) expressed dissatisfaction that judges would only be able to exercise discretion during sentencing if and only when the ‘Public Prosecutor certifies in writing to the Court, that in his determination, the person convicted has assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia.’(Section 2(b) of the Amending Act). 

NEW AMENDMENT REMOVES PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S CONTROL OVER JUDGE’S DISCRETION IN SENTENCING

On 30/11/2017, the need for the Public Prosecutor’s certification was removed. The words “the Public Prosecutor certifies in writing to the court that in his determination” was removed and replaced with the word,“that”. This means that one of the points that the judge now must consider before sentence is passed is that ‘the person convicted has assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia.’ 

Whilst, this is definitely better, there still remains a concern whether persons convicted would really be able to provide such assistance, and the when will such assistance be required to be provided. 

Rightly, that assistance should be provided only after one has been tried and convicted. To suggest otherwise would be most prejudicial to the accused person, and it may seen as forcing  accused persons into doing things that are self incriminatory, including statements, that will assist the prosecution get a conviction, in the face of a threat of being sentenced and put to death. This is most unacceptable especially in a capital cases, where if one is convicted, it may result in the imposition of the death sentence. 

We know that many a times drug trafficking is usually carried out by kingpins and their criminal organisations, and as such there is also a real risk that any such ‘assistance’ by the convicted person may bring to them and/or their families retaliation and/or harm, more so when the fact of this assistance is made known. Malaysia, as such, must develop a substantive witness protection scheme that will ensure safety of the convicted as well as their families, if need be.

The other concern is the fact that some convicted will in fact may have very little information, not sufficient to have ‘assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia’, noting that words used on the face of it indicates that assistance given ‘..has assisted..’. One can only provide assistance as much as one is able to, and it may sometimes be seen as not being useful or sufficient to assist any enforcement agency. As such, what is expected to escape the death sentence may still be unreasonable. It may have been better, if all that is required was what a person reasonably could have done to assist, irrespective of whether it really assisted the enforcement agency or not. Until there is an amendment, it is hoped that when judges do consider this element of ‘assistance’, reasonableness and reality is also considered.

800 OR MORE ON DEATH ROW AND THOSE ALREADY CONVICTED NOT HELPED BY AMENDMENTS

It was most disappointing that the new amendments to the Bill did not address the concern as to what will happen to the 800 or more still on death row for drug trafficking. It was best that all their sentences be forthwith commuted to imprisonment.

WHEN AMENDMENTS IN FORCE, ONLY A RE-TRIAL WILL DO JUSTICE

Although, if and when this amendment comes into force, it will apply also to cases where trial had started but the accused has not yet been convicted. 

There are serious concerns about trials that have already started. Evidence will have been adduced, challenged and/or rebutted in these trials where both the accused and prosecution were operating under the belief that on conviction, there will only be the mandatory death penalty. As such, even when the amendment comes into force, it will only be just if there be a new trial before a new judge, given the fact that the strategy and conduct of the trial would most likely be very different given the fact judges would now, after the amendment comes into force, the discretion to not sentence the convicted to death. 

In light of the upcoming amendment to section 39B, MADPET calls for the immediate stop of all section 39B trials pending the coming into force the amendment that gives judges the discretion to impose a sentence other than the death sentence. There should be new trials before different judges for all these cases.

11 EXECUTED AND 122 DEATH SENTENCES COMMUTTED SINCE 2000

It was also revealed by Minister Azalina Dato’ Othman Said, as stated in the Parliamentary Hansard dated 30/11/2017, that the prison department statistics revealed that from 2000 until 2017, 113 persons were sentenced to death under section 39B of the DDA 1952, whereby only 11 were executed, whilst another 122 persons have been pardoned and had their death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. There was, however, no disclosure as to why some were executed and others had their sentences commuted. Did diplomatic concerns or other unacceptable considerations have a part to play in these decisions as to who lives and who is hanged to death?

MADPET urges that the death sentence of all persons on death row, especially for drug trafficking, be immediately commuted to imprisonment.

DEATH PENALTY NOT A DETERENT – SO TOO WILL LIFE IMPRISONMENT NOT BE

The Minister also stated that the police statistics reveal an increase of drug cases every year despite the drastic measures taken by the police, which we could take as including the fact of the existence of the mandatory death penalty for section 39B DDA 1952 – drug trafficking. 

Since January 2014 until October 2017, 702,319 individuals for arrested by the police for the offence of trafficking and possession of drug. 

A total of 21,731 persons were arrested under section 39B DDA 1952(drug trafficking), whereby investigation papers were opened for 13,036 persons and 10,878 persons were charged in court. The Minister also revealed that 68 drug kingpins were arrested during this period. 106 illegal laboratories were also raided resulting in the arrest of 409. (Hansard Dewan Rakyat, 30/11/2017)

The death penalty for drug trafficking came into being in 1975, and in 1983, there was an amendment that brought in the mandatory death penalty. It is clear now that even the mandatory death penalty has not deterred people from committing the offence of drug trafficking, and in fact there has been an increase of persons committing this crime.

As such, merely giving the judges the option of death sentence or life imprisonment (with at least 15 strokes of the whip) also needs to be reviewed. Severe punishment is not serving as a deterrent, and as such, we should be looking at rehabilitation and second chances to persons convicted of even the crime of drug trafficking.

Our concern should be rehabilitation, and it is certainly most unjust to be sentencing a first time offender or a young person to life imprisonment.

MADPET would suggest that section 39B should be further amended setting a minimum sentence of 5-10 years, as this will be more just. Judges then will have discretion to impose the appropriate sentence depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Malaysia also needs to look at the reasons why people commit this mandatory death penalty crime. One of the main causes may be poverty. Hence, the way forward in reducing the crime of drug trafficking (or other crimes driven by poverty) may be addressing the socio-economic conditions that drive people to be willing to risk their life and liberty for monies.

MADPET also urges that all persons arrested for drug offences be accorded the right to a fair trial, and that detention without trial laws like the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 not be used. The Minister revealed that 68 drug kingpins have also been arrested, but sadly there seem to have been little publicity about their trials and/or convictions.  

MADPET also would like to remind the Malaysian government that they were looking at abolishing the death penalty, especially the mandatory death penalty, for all crimes not just for drug trafficking. Whilst, we welcome this move to abolish the mandatory death penalty for section 39B, we urge that the abolition of the mandatory death penalty is expedited. 

MADPET reiterates its call for the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia, and for the imposition of an immediate moratorium on all executions pending abolition.

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



* Some relevant extracts from 30/11/2017 Hansard, where the Bill was passed..


Pelbagai langkah drastik yang diambil oleh kerajaan. Namun begitu statistik Polis Diraja Malaysia tetap menunjukkan peningkatan kes pada setiap tahun. Dari Januari 2014 sehingga Oktober 2017, seramai 702,319 orang individu ditahan polis di atas kesalahan mengedar dan memiliki dadah. Seramai 21,731 individu ditangkap di bawah seksyen 39B, Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 disemak 1980, Akta 234...


...Seterusnya sebanyak 13,036 orang kertas siasatan ke atasnya telah dibuka dan sebanyak 10,878 orang kesnya telah dituduh di mahkamah dalam masa yang sama. Lebih membimbangkan adalah sebanyak 1,743 tangkapan melibatkan penuntut sekolah dan sebanyak 1,953 tangkapan melibatkan penuntut institusi pengajian tinggi di bawah Akta 234 dari Januari 2014 sehingga Oktober 2017. Pada masa yang sama, sebanyak 68 kingpin telah ditangkap dalam tempoh tersebut. Lebih parah lagi, sebanyak 106 makmal haram memproses dadah yang beroperasi secara aktif telah diserbu oleh pihak berkuasa dengan tangkapan mereka yang mengendalikan makmal itu seramai 409 orang....

...Jika dilihat daripada statistik pihak penjara dari tahun 2000 hingga tahun 2017, seramai 113 orang yang telah dikenakan hukuman mati di bawah seksyen 39B DDA 1952, hanya 11 orang yang telah dihukum gantung iaitu 82 peratus. Manakala sebanyak 91.7 peratus, seramai 122 orang yang telah diberikan pengampunan dan keringanan hukuman iaitu dikenakan hukuman penjara seumur hidup....

...6.21 ptg.
Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri [Dato’ Sri Azalina Dato’ Othman Said]: Tuan Pengerusi, sub fasal 2(b) rang undang-undang ini akan memasukkan subseksyen 39B(2A), (2B) dan (2C) ke dalam Akta Ibu dipinda:-
                (a) dalam perenggan 39B(2A)(d) yang dicadangkan dengan menggantikan perkataan “the Public Prosecutor certifies in writing to the court that in his determination”, dengan perkataan “that”;
                (b) dengan memotong subseksyen 39B(2B);
                (c) dengan menomborkan semula subseksyen 39B(2C) sebagai subseksyen 39B(2B); dan
                (d) dalam perenggan 39B(2B) yang dinomborkan semula, dengan menggantikan perkataan “For the purposes of subsections (2A) and (2B)”, dengan perkataan “For the purposes of subsection (2A).

Pindaan kepada subfasal 2(b) rang undang-undang bertujuan untuk meniadakan perakuan daripada pendakwa raya tentang bantuan yang diberikan oleh orang yang disabitkan....




...[Rang undang-undang dilaporkan dengan ada pindaan; dibacakan kali yang ketiga, disokong oleh Timbalan Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri (Datuk Haji Ahmad bin Haji Maslan) dan diluluskan]...

– Hansard Dewan Rakyat, 30/11/2017
DEWAN RAKYAT
PARLIMEN KETIGA BELAS
PENGGAL KELIMA
MESYUARAT KETIGA
Bil. 57
Khamis
30 November 2017

With too much power in its hands, BN risks complacency(Malaysiakini)

$
0
0

With too much power in its hands, BN risks complacency

Published:     Modified:


COMMENT | I have been taking a breather by focusing on food reviews, thinking that I could come back with a more balanced view of both BN and Pakatan Harapan.

Sadly, my perspectives and observations have not changed, and I am not expecting things to change for the better for BN.

In fact, what is most damaging so far to the ruling coalition is the claim by the US Attorney-General Jeff Sessions that the alleged misappropriation of funds from 1MDB is kleptocracy at its worst”.

While both coalitions have good and the ugly sides at the same time - to be fair, there is no perfect organisation or political party so long as we are still humans - but to allow alleged kleptocrats to continue to ruin this country is one of the biggest sins.

Islamist party PAS, which is supposed to apply a check-and-balance on its rival party Umno has also lost its bearing under the leadership of its president, Abdul Hadi Awang. PAS’ suit against Sarawak Report editor, Clare Rewcastle-Brown has also opened a new can of worms with regards to the 1MDB scandal.

This is what baffles me, to think that there is too much power on one side to the point that BN no longer cares about its own public image in order to win the support of its voters.

Alleged kleptocrats are allowed to get away scot-free while someone like Siti Noor Aishah Atam was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for having a few books for her own academic research work. These books were never banned by Malaysia anyway.

As Malaysian human rights activist Charles Hector argues, the ruling is not only unjust, but is also seriously flawed. “Amongst others,” Hector points out, “there is a lack of mens rea (intention) in this offence - a flaw which was supposed to be remedied in an amendment, but which is yet to be done.”

Unbridled tongues 

Despite the bad guys making the most noise, the people in the corridors of power are turning a blind eye to these agent provocateurs.

We have seen how these people are allowed to taunt ordinary citizens and make all sorts of threats. Some are even lacking in morality.

For example, the “butt exercises” in front of the home of former Bersih co-chair, Ambiga Sreenevasan, which involved Mohd Ali Baharom or Ali Tinju, a former soldier who has since been booted out of the Malaysian Armed Forces Veteran Association (PVTM), and yet was spared from being charged with any form of criminal intimidation.

Others, including the elder brother of former inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar, have yet to face the music for creating a ruckus in front of a church in Taman Medan.

Now, when Umno Sungai Besar division leader, Jamal Md Yunos claims that he will expose a PKR Youth leader’s unusual wealth, some of us may applaud.

However, what does Jamal have to say about the 1MDB scandal that has brought embarrassment to the nation? So far, he has simply avoided talking about the scandal.

Enough is said, no one pays attention to him anymore except to highlight the silly things that he is saying, just to make everyone squirm whenever we read about his latest antics. There are many others whom I do not need to mention; in fact, they are not worth mentioning at all.

When we see these agent provocateurs appear to be invincible, we ourselves can only arrive at one conclusion: the people in Putrajaya are no longer happy to uphold justice. There is simply too much power on one side that the other side does not have the means to exercise.

Because the good guys in BN are still remaining silent and oblivious, it is those who bark the loudest that get the most limelight.

Sometimes, it drives us up the wall when we read howling comments by these “political hyenas” which are literally turning our country’s political arena into somewhat of a circus.

Changing patterns

Likewise, as I look at it, MCA, MIC and Gerakan do not have good young leaders (you know them from the way they speak); whereas Umno’s younger batch of leaders are still thinking that the keris is mightier than the ability to influence.

This is the reason why most of the younger generation of leaders have flocked towards Harapan, and this is where I can see the uniting forces at work with Sabahans and Sarawakians in the next general election.

Sabahans and Sarawakians, unlike their political masters on the peninsula, are more liberal in their outlook.

The undercurrents in East Malaysia, especially Sabah, may yet bring us bigger surprises compared to the political tsunami of 2008, as the younger generation of Sabahans and Sarawakians are now more exposed to the world. Therefore, unless BN revamps itself, it will become obsolete in no time.

With too much power on its side, BN is in danger of becoming obsolete altogether if it does not quickly revamp its own international image. As Malaysians, we are equally exposed to the 1MDB scandal, and perhaps more so than the international community since news about the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund is highlighted in the media nearly every day.


STEPHEN NG is an ordinary citizen with an avid interest in following political developments in the country since 2008.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Read more at https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/404571#xol6t2lOCpdEoZyO.99
 
Note: The above is an opinion of another, and it is posted here in the interest of promoting freedom of expression and opinion. Not necessarily I support all of the points and arguments made.. It is important to know and consider opinions and views of other human persons...it certainly helps us all...

Does UMNO's 3 million members want Najib as President until 2021?

$
0
0
ODD - UMNO recent Annual General Meeting passed a resolution that there will be no contest for the post of Prime Minister(Najib), Deputy Prime Minister(Ahmad Zahid Hamidi)...[and also the Senior Vice President(Hishamuddin)]? 3 of these CURRENT top leaders will be protected in their position until 2021...?

So, how many UMNO members were really at the AGM - 3 million - or was it just the about 2,000 delegates. Don't the rest of the UMNO members have any say on who they want for their next UMNO President...or whether they want elections for the post of President, Deputy President?

Around 2013, UMNO changed a lot of things with regard to nominations, and also who can vote in the President and the top leaders of UMNO. 


The UMNO's bonus votes and quota system were succeeded by the indirect election with an electoral college comprising electors representing the party's 191 divisions, involving 146,500 UMNO grassroot members got to vote instead of previously limited to only 2,000 over delegates. Umno has 3.3 million members. Delegates from the branches who previously could only choose division office bearers, now have the liberty to choose leaders up to the Supreme Council. And under the previous system, only 2,500 delegates were eligible to choose the party’s top line up.
All the ambitious UMNO members who plan to scale the party ranks can register to contest for any position. All they have to do is to hand over their nomination forms for the Wanita, Pemuda, Puteri wings and Supreme Council positions before the deadline for nomination submission.
The new party polling system has opened the doors for anyone registered as a party member for at least one term (three years) to contest at the divisional level.
As for the Supreme Council — members, vice presidents, deputy president and even the president — the minimum requirement is that they have to be division office bearers for at least one term (three years).[1]

Now, to be nominated, all it requires is simply one member to propose and one to second, whilst previously a certain number of Divisions had to nominate.  [Remember how before, Tengku Razaleigh was nominated several times but did not qualify to contest because he only got nomination of one division..]

2013 leadership election

  • Najib Razak won uncontested, nominated by Muhyiddin Yassin and seconded by Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor[13]
  • no other nomination paper was sent on the deadline for nomination submission
Now, apparently, about 150,000 UMNO members will have the right to vote - not just what previously was just the delegates at the AGM...about 2,000.

So, now have these 150,000 been deprived of their right to vote for the President, Deputy President,... by the delegates at the UMNO AGM? Did the about 150,000 even support this resolution???

What about all those potential candidates for the post of UMNO President, Deputy President ...all their plans to contest have been shattered...Some may have not been at the UMNO AGM...

Najib and Zahid Hamidi must be really worried about their future even in UMNO - and here is a great solution, a RESOLUTION many months(maybe even about a year) ahead of elections - to guarantee that no one in UMNO can contest for their position...so no ELECTIONS too...and the top 3 will continue to hold their position until 2021..

Is Najib and Zahid Hamidi not even confident that the 150,000 members, even if there is any challenge, will vote for them?

Interesting also is the question whether the 3 million members still want Najib, Zahid Hamidi and Hishamuddin as their top 3 leaders...?

If UMNO's alleged about 3 million members were given the right to vote for the Party President and Deputy President, then we will all know that Najib has the support of the 3 million members, at at the very least a significant majority of the 3 million members of UMNO.

Does UMNO really have 3 million members? Do they pay their own annual subscriptions? Do they even attend the Branch General Assemblies? Or maybe they are just members on paper...maybe some even do not know that they are still registered members of UMNO...

As I mentioned, if all these members had a right to vote - then this will also be the proof of the real number of UMNO members in Malaysia today.This will also be a very important indication of how much support Najib Tun Razak really have amongst the current UMNO membership today - which is very important given the recent alleged wrongdoings or scandals - the billions in his personal account, 1MDB, MAS, FELDA, ...etc. But we would never know...until 2021?

UMNO is a society ...so what UMNO and its members do is up to them...in any event, they seem to have Najib, Zahid Hamidi and Hishamuddin (unchallenged...with no elections) for many years to come...at least until 2021..

Well, if there was a need for UMNO to demonstrate UNITY for the upcoming PRU - why bother about the the next UMNO elections that comes months after the PRU?

Well, General Elections will come before the UMNO elections, and it is the belief that Najib(President) will have much power of who will be the UMNO candidates - so, if anyone stands against him, he may just not name them as candidate for MP or ADUN..

And, if in the slim chance that BN wins again, the Najib also will decide who becomes Minister, Deputy Minister, etc...

This certainly may not be the time for any aspiring candidates to go against Najib...

In any event, historically UMNO has only on a few occasions had elections for the President's post..


1951 leadership election

  • Tunku Abdul Rahman, 57 votes
  • Chik Mohamad Yusuf Sheikh Abdul Rahman, 11 votes
  • Ahmad Fuad Hassan, 7 votes
An election for the leadership of the United Malays National Organisation was triggered by Onn Jaafar's announcement on 25 August 1951, of his intention to resign as leader after years of conflict between Onn's faction of the party and his rival factions. The party's annual general assembly, already scheduled to occur from 25 August to 26 August 1951 in Kuala Lumpur's Majestic Hotel, was organised the party leadership election at the same venue. The party announced Tunku Abdul Rahman as its new Yang di-Pertua on 26 August 1951.

Ahmad Fuad Hassan who was defeated in the party leadership election, left UMNO with his faction. He then became the first Yang di-Pertua of Pan-Malayan Islamic Organisation.


1978 leadership election

  • Hussein Onn 898 votes, nominated by
  • Sulaiman Ahmad "Palestin" 250 votes, nominated by 1 UMNO division
An election for the leadership of the United Malays National Organisation was prompted by outgoing Prime Minister Abdul Razak Hussein's death due in part of leukaemia. On 14 January 1976, Hussein Onn was selected to serve as interim leader.
Hussein Onn won the election as President of UMNO on 15 September 1978. However, UMNO held its party election for other Supreme Council top posts on 15 September 1978.
Sulaiman Ahmad "Palestin" was nominated by Sungei Besi division.


1987 leadership election

  • Mahathir Mohamad 761 votes, nominated by 88 UMNO divisions
  • Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah 718 votes, nominated by 37 UMNO divisions
Mahathir Mohamad confirmed his nomination on 9 April 1987 and won the election as President of UMNO on 24 April 1987. However, UMNO held its party election for other Supreme Council top posts on 24 April 1987.
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah with his faction left UMNO to set up Parti Melayu Semangat 46.- Source - Wikipedia, United Malays National Organisation leadership elections

When it came to the first elections under the new system, Najib won uncontested in 2013.

WELL - this time around, it looks like Najib may not be so confident - he may be challenged for the Presidential post..

There was supposed to be UMNO elections in 2016 - but it was postponed because of the upcoming General Elections. Well, the Prime Minister decides when the General Elections would be...and surely, he would have known that there could have been UMNO elections in 2016  - after all it is now the end of 2017, and there is still no General Elections yet...If an Opposition party delays its elections because of upcoming GE, there may be logic - since they do not know when it will happen..

Does Barisan Nasional have elections? Wonder why not? 

Anyway, as mentioned, UMNO is a society and what it does or does not do depends only on its members - its about 3 million members. So, all that is mentioned here is nothing but a mere opinion of a non-UMNO member...

 


Confirmed - No challenge for top two Umno posts

Published:     Modified:

UMNO AGM | Umno has passed a motion for the president and deputy president's posts to remain uncontested in next year's party polls.
 
Tabled by the Youth wing, the motion was passed by a show of hands during the Umno general assembly at the Putra World Trade Centre (PWTC) in Kuala Lumpur this afternoon.

The move, which is to keep Umno focused on the 14th general election, would allow Zahid, who is assuming the duties of the deputy president, to officially become the number two without facing challengers for the post.

Zahid is currently an Umno vice-president.

The party elections were supposed to be held in 2016, but were deferred to next year, pending GE14.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister and Umno president Najib Abdul Razak has never faced a challenge for the Umno presidency since taking up the mantle in 2009.

He won uncontested in 2009, when the nomination quota was in place. The quota system was abolished in 2013, but again Najib was uncontested.

Rompin Umno Youth representative Mohamad Sahfri Ab Aziz, who put forth the motion, also made a motion for Hishammuddin Hussein to retain his position as Umno vice-president.

Mohamad Sahfri said this was not meant to sideline the party elections but rather to show the spirit of loyalty and a winning mentality.

Umno has three vice-presidents. One of the posts remains vacant following the resignation of Mohd Shafie Apdal, who is now leading the Sabah-based opposition party Warisan.

The deputy president post, on the other hand, has remained vacant since last year after former deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin was sacked from Umno.

Muhyiddin, who was dropped from the cabinet a year earlier for his critical views of 1MDB, has since crossed over to the opposition and is the president of Bersatu, which is touted as an alternative to Umno.

Since Muhyiddin's removal, Zahid was appointed as deputy prime minister and later as the de facto Umno number two.

In an interview with The Star last month, Hishammuddin, who is Najib's cousin, expressed support for the proposal that the top two positions are not subject to contest.

“The most important thing for us is that the Umno machinery and leadership, at all levels, focuses on GE14.

“If it means that the top two posts remain uncontested because there has been a motion at the division level for these posts not to be contested, then I’m supportive of that,” Hishammuddin said.- Malaysiakini, 8/12/2017

No contest for Umno's top three as party eyes big win at general election

KUALA LUMPUR - The top three positions in Umno will not be contested at its next internal polls, as Malaysia's ruling party bids to stamp out infighting ahead of a crucial general election due by August.

In a resolution passed during the party's annual congress on Friday (Dec 8), president Najib Razak and acting deputy president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi will automatically be the most senior leaders in the party in the next term.

Vice-president Hishammuddin Hussein was also granted the position of senior vice-president without contest.

"We took the decision... to accept the senior vice-presidency should be given to Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein," Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid told a press conference after the party's supreme council resolution was passed unanimously.

Mr Hishammuddin said he felt "relief and pride" that the leadership lineup had received the blessing of over 2,000 delegates attending the Umno meet.

"This will ensure full focus on the general elections," he said.

Mr Zahid came in first in the VP race in 2013, while Mr Hishammuddin - Datuk Seri Najib's cousin - narrowly scraped through to defend one of three vice-presidencies.

The resolution initially proposed that only Prime Minister Najib and deputy premier Ahmad Zahid maintain their party positions uncontested. But delegates speaking at the general assembly called for Defence Minister Hisham to also be given a free pass at party polls due by April.

The party elections were originally due by October 2016 but they were delayed to prepare for a national ballot that has yet to be called. The Straits Times understands that Umno will write to the Registrar of Societies to allow the party to further delay its internal vote so that it does not clash with the general election.
Party sources told The Straits Times that the race for the vice-presidency is likely to see a crowded field next year. Despite his seniority in the party, Mr Hishammuddin had slipped down the pecking order at the last polls, and other ambitious warlords are aiming to leapfrog him.

The move on Friday ringfences Mr Najib and his top lieutenants, amid reports and speculation that they have been jockeying to increase their influence in the party, a tussle which could intensify if the premier fails to win a resounding mandate at the general election. - The Straits Times, 8/12/2017

 

UMNO 2016 party polls postponed for 18 months - Najib

UMNO 2016 party polls postponed for 18 months - Najib
UMNO 2016 party polls postponed for 18 months, focus now to strengthen BN - Datuk Seri Najib Razak
 
KUALA LUMPUR: The UMNO's party elections, initially scheduled next year, has been postponed for 18 months, said UMNO president Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

The decision is made to strengthen the Barisan Nasional ahead of the 14th general election, Najib said at a press conference after chairing the UMNO Supreme Council meeting today.

Najib said such postponement had been done during his predecessors' time.

“It is important for us to prioritise the people, their needs, policies, grassroots and strengthening the party so that UMNO will be stronger ahead of the next general election,” he said.

‎UMNO deputy president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had before this suggested that UMNO should not postpone its party polls but to hold it according to the time set by the party’s constitution.

Muhyiddin also suggested for the UMNO constitution to be amended next year to enable younger generation to contribute and play a bigger role in the party.

“I believe UMNO will not split if the election is held. UMNO leaders are matured enough to handle it,” said Muhyiddin had said during his speech at the official opening of the UMNO party wings at the Putra World Trade Centre last year.

UMNO held its party election in October, 2013 after it was postponed to pave way for the 13th General Election. The election was initially scheduled to be held in 2012.

The current UMNO leadership mandate will end in 2016 while the current parliament mandate will end in 2018.

Meanwhile, when asked why the 18-months postponement is announced so early, Najib said it was to allow party members to work on their KPIs.

‘If we don’t decide now, many will speculate,” he added.

On speculations of a Cabinet reshuffle after the Aidilfitri celebration, Najib said all quarters should be patient.- Astro Awani, 26/6/2015
 

June 2015 - that was the date Najib announced postponement of UMNO polls for 18 months...???

Now 45 Groups call on Malaysia to abolish POCA and Detention Without Trial Laws

$
0
0


Media Statement16/11/2017

ABOLISH POCA AND DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL LAWS
142 juveniles and possibly thousands denied their
liberty without being accorded the right to fair trial

We, the 45 undersigned civil society organisations, trade unions and groups are perturbed to hear that 142 juveniles have been arrested under the Prevention of Crime Act (POCA), a law that allows the detention of people without trial. This was revealed by the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, in a Parliamentary written reply dated 31/10/2017.(Malaysian Insight, 7/11/2017)

We are shocked about the continued existence of Detention Without Trial laws in Malaysia, including the Prevention of Crimes Act 1959(POCA), Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015(POTA) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 that allows for persons to be arrested, detained and/or restricted without even being accorded the right to challenge the reasons of their incarceration and/or restriction in court. The fundamental right to a fair trial is denied. 

If 142 juveniles were victims of this Detention Without Trial(DWT) law, then one wonders whether thousands of individuals are currently being detained/restricted under POCA and other DWT laws.

The fundamental problem with these DWT laws in Malaysia is that the victim cannot even challenge even the reasons for his arrest, detention and/or restriction in a court of law. Without the ability to go for a judicial review challenging the reasons used for the detention/restriction, the judiciary is effectively barred from ensuring that the Executive is not abusing its power and/or that no innocent person is being unjustly denied his constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties.  

DWT allows for an individual to be detained and/or restricted indefinitely according to the whims and fancies of the government, be it a Minister or some appointed Board. 

A person who has been arrested, detained and/or restricted under these draconian Detention Without Trial Laws are also denied the fundamental right to a fair trial. The  State could also deny rights/liberties of the innocent. The principle that everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law must be respected.

When Malaysia finally got rid of the infamous Internal Security Act 1960(ISA) and the Emergency(Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969, there was hope that all other laws that allow for DWT will also soon be repealed. 

However, the opposite happened and the ability of the State to continue using Detention Without Trial laws, was enhanced by the amendments of the Prevention of Crimes Act 1959(POCA), and the introduction of the new Prevention of Terrorism Act 2012.

An amendment to POCA, which came into effect on 2/4/2014, introduced a new Part IVA, that introduced Detention Without Trial. The Board could now issue ‘detention order for a period not exceeding two years, and may renew any such detention order for a further period not exceeding two years at a time, if it is satisfied that such detention is necessary in the interest of public order, public security or prevention of crime.’

Previously, when POCA was used, within 24 hours after arrest when the victim is brought before the Magistrate for a remand application, a statement in writing signed by a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent stating that there are grounds for believing that the name of that person should be entered on the Register was required before a Magistrate had to grant a 14 day remand. But, after April 2014, all that is required is a statement of a police officer of merely the rank of Inspector. Hence, rather than having greater safeguard against possible abuse, it was made easier by requiring just a lower ranked Inspector’s statement. Remand period was also extended to 21 days.

POCA, which was originally enacted to be used for organized crime members, triads or gangs involved in crimes involving ‘violence or extortion’ was amended to cover all offences in the Penal Code. Originally it was to be used for gangs of 5 or more persons, but that was amended to 2 or more persons. That means that POCA can now be used for even a person who committed a  crime with another, even if the crime was theft or some other lesser crime. Right to a fair trial now could easily be denied for many more persons.

The POCA amendment, that came into force in May 2014, allowed for POCA to be used also for an even wider range of persons including drug traffickers including persons living on proceeds of drug trafficking, human traffickers including persons living on proceeds of human trafficking, persons involved in unlawful gaming, smugglers of migrants including persons living on proceeds of migrant smuggling, recruiters of members of gangs or persons to participate in some crime. A subsequent amendment in 2015 added ‘Persons who engage in the commission or support of terrorist acts under the Penal Code’.

An interesting amendment to POCA that came into effect on 1/9/2015 was section 4(2A) which stated that “No person shall be arrested and detained under this section solely for his political belief or political activity. 

The new Section 4(5) goes on to explain "political belief or political activity" as meaning ‘engaging in a lawful activity through-(a) the expression of an opinion or the pursuit of a course of action made according to the tenets of a political party that is at the relevant time registered under the Societies Act 1966 [Act 335] as evidenced by-(i) membership of or contribution to that party; or (ii) open and active participation in the affairs of that party; (b)the expression of an opinion directed towards any government in Malaysia; or (c)the pursuit of a course of action directed towards any government in Malaysia.".

This may give the impression that POCA will not be used against politicians (and possibly even civil society personalities) for actions directed against the government. It however does not protect civil society or human rights defenders if their actions and/or expression of opinion is directed against some our perpetrator of injustice, not being ‘any government’, or is they are alleged of committing some other crime. We recall that POCA was used in July 2016 in the case of R. Sri Sanjeevan, Malaysian Crime Watch Task Force (MyWatch) chairman – a civil society organisation.

This amendment, however, may have the effect of reducing the interest or concern of political parties about POCA and such Detention Without Trial Laws.

The victims of these DWT laws may now be mostly common people, who are being detained and/or restricted for years without even being accorded a fair trial.

The number of victims of such DWT laws are also unknown, as most such information in Malaysia are usually known when the government makes a reply to a Parliamentary Question. The recent information about the number of juvenile victims of POCA was because of a such question raised by an Opposition parliamentarian.

Now, whenever a person is suspected of a crime involving 2 or more persons, POCA can simply be used as it is so much easier, and requires no comprehensive investigation or gathering of evidence that would have been required if one was to be charged and tried in court. In a fair trial, prosecution needs to prove that a person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The guilt or innocence of a person must be determined by an independent judge in court, and the belief of the police, prosecution or government that a person is guilty is inadequate. A trial also gives a right to the accused persons to defend themselves, and the courts will decide after considering all evidence and facts of the case.

Therefore, we call

1.       For the immediate repeal of all Detention Without Trial laws, including the Prevention of Crimes Act 1959(POCA), Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015(POTA) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985;
2.       For the immediate and unconditional release of all persons now currently being detained and/or restricted under these Detention Without Trial laws;
3.       For the immediate disclosure of the numbers of persons being detained under these DWT laws, and the reasons being used to justify their detention/restriction;
4.       That compensation and/or damages be paid to all victims of detention without trial laws for their loss of rights and liberties;


Charles Hector
For and on behalf the 36 groups, organisations and unions listed below

ALIRAN
Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters- HRDP, Myanmar
Asia Pacific Solidarity Coalition. (APSOC)
ATRAHDOM Guatemala.
AWAM
Australians Against Capital Punishment(AACP)
BERSIH 2.0
Center for Prisoners' Rights Japan
Christian Development Alternative (CDA), Bangladesh
Civil Rights Committee of KLSCAH
Democratic Commission for Human Development, Pakistan
Indonesian Legal Roundtable
Institute for development of Alternative Living (IDEAL)
Japan Innocence and Death Penalty Information Center
Legal Awareness Watch (LAW), Pakistan
MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility
Malaysia Youth & Student Democratic Movement (DEMA)
National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW)
North South Initiative
NUFAM(National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia)
Odhikar, Bangladesh
Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM)
Persatuan Komuniti Prihatin Selangor & KL
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates
PROHAM (Society for the Promotion of Human Rights, Malaysia)
Sahabat Rakyat 人民之友
Sawit Watch, Indonesian Social NGO
Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
Sosialis Alternatif (Committee for Workers International-Malaysia)
Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy
Think Centre, Singapore
Workers Assistance Center, Inc., Philippines
WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)
Yaung Chi Oo Workers Association (YCOWA)

Additional Endorsements:-
Asia Centre
Human Rights & Democracy Media Center SHAMS”
Lawyers For Human Rights International (India)
Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT-Liberia)
Inter-Research And Studies Institute (IRAS)
Iran Human Rights (IHR)
Journey of Hope...from Violence to Healing
Association Justice & Mercy  (AJEM)
lifespark – Switzerland
                                                                                                                                     

Let Judicial Discretion in Sentencing Lead to the Total Abolition of the Death Penalty (Malaysian Bar)

$
0
0
Press Release | Let Judicial Discretion in Sentencing Lead to the Total Abolition of the Death Penalty

Tuesday, 05 December 2017 09:05am
ImageThe Malaysian Bar welcomes the removal of the mandatory death sentence for drug offences and the restoration of judicial discretion in sentencing with the passing of the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Bill 2017 (“the Bill”) by the Dewan Rakyat on 30 November 2017.

We wish to recognise the Government for having considered public feedback by amending the Bill and removing the requirement of the Public Prosecutor’s certification of the assistance rendered by the convicted person, for the Judge to not pass the death penalty.  

However, there remain limits to what the Judge can take into account in exercising his/her discretion in sentencing.  Section 39B(2A) of the Bill, inter alia, requires that the Court:

… may have regard only to the following circumstances: [emphasis added]

(a) there was no evidence of buying and selling of a dangerous drug at the time when the person convicted was arrested;

(b) there was no involvement of agent provocateur; or

(c) the involvement of the person convicted is restricted to transporting, carrying, sending or delivering a dangerous drug; and

(d) that the person convicted has assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia.

We are concerned that Judges are being limited in their consideration of the mitigating factors and circumstances that surround each case, before sentencing.  Such mitigating factors can include, and are not limited to, the offender’s age, rehabilitation goals, past criminal record, role played in the offence, mental capacity, reparations made, fear of another person, use of violence, harm done to property or persons, and degree of cooperation with the authorities.  The sentencing process is, and should always remain, within the unfettered domain of the Judiciary.

We are also troubled that the determination on whether the death penalty is imposed rests upon an assessment of the convicted person’s ability or willingness to assist in disrupting drug trafficking activities.  A person’s right to life is a fundamental right, not a privilege that can be revoked if that person is deemed not sufficiently “useful” to an enforcement agency.

The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Government to further amend the Bill to enable those already convicted and sentenced to death to apply for a review of their sentence.  Meanwhile, the Government should officially declare and implement a moratorium on all pending executions. 

The Malaysian Bar remains resolute in our position that the death penalty is an extreme, abhorrent and inhumane punishment.  There are also provisions for the imposition of the mandatory death penalty in the Penal Code and the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971, and of the discretionary death penalty in the Kidnapping Act 1961.

The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Government to act without delay to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, and to uphold the right to life, which is absolute, universal and inalienable.

George Varughese
President
Malaysian Bar

5 December 2017
 
 
See earlier related posts:-

Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia Message on International Human Rights Day

$
0
0










9 December, 2017
Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia
Message on International Human Rights Day

As Malaysia joins the world in commemorating International Human Rights Day on December 10, perhaps this is a good time to reflect on our own human rights record. This year, Human Rights Day will kick off a year-long campaign to mark the upcoming 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was proclaimed on 10th December 1948. 

Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM), a coalition of 27 NGOs of diverse background, is sad to note that the past year has not seen any significant improvement of the human rights in Malaysia. To list all the violations of human rights in Malaysia in 2017 would probably take too much space, however the experience of various GBM’s member organisations in the past year is enough to illustrate the sad state of human rights in Malaysia. 

On 21st February 2017, Lena Hendry, a former programme coordinator of Pusat KOMAS, a member organisation of GBM, who was charged with airing the documentary “No Fire Zone” in a Pusat KOMAS’s event in 2013 without the approval from Malaysian Censorship Board, was found guilty under Film Censorship Act 2002 and on 22nd March 2017 she was sentenced to pay a fine of RM10,000. The documentary touches upon the alleged war crime against the Tamil community in Sri Lankan civil war. 

The case reflected the growing threat against the freedom of expression in Malaysia. It also set a dangerous precedent that it is now unlawful for people to document and screen videos without sending their videos to the Film Censorship Board for approval.  

On 24th May 2017, three activists from Citizen Action Group on Enforced Disappearance (CAGED) – Sevan Doraisamy, Thomas Fann and Rama Ramanathan – was questioned by the police following an order by the then Inspector General, Khalid Abu Bakar through his Twitter posting. CAGED is a coalition of NGOs that aim to monitor cases of enforced disappearance in Malaysia following the mysterious abductions of Pastor Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat, and the disappearance of Pastor Joshua Hilmy and his wife, Ruth. Rama was representing Bersih 2.0 while Sevan and Thomas were respectively representing SUARAM and ENGAGE, which are member organisations of GBM. 

The National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) has formed a public inquiry into the allegations of enforced disappearances, which is still on-going. These cases of suspected enforced disappearances is a worrying trend that has emerged in 2017 and added to the already bloated  list of human rights’ concern in Malaysia. 

On 16th August 2017, Ho Yock Lin, former president of All Women Action Society (AWAM), a member organisation of GBM focusing on women’s rights and Ivy Josiah, a women’s rights activist, were questioned by the police for their involvement in the “Free Maria” walk. The Free Maria walk was held on 23rdNovember 2016 where more than 500 women marched from Padang Merbok to the Parliament building, demanding Maria Chin Abdullah, the Chair of Bersih 2.0, to be released from detention under Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) for her role in the organising of Bersih 5 rally. 

The questioning, which was held nine months after the event, was another example of assault against freedom of assembly, which was ironic considering that the walk itself was intended as a protest against the police’s detention of Maria which was itself another example of attack on the freedom of assembly as well as an example of the abuse a law which provided for detention without trial. 

Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF), another member organisation of GBM, has also became a victim of the narrowing space of human rights in Malaysia. In 2017, several books published or distributed by the organisation have been banned by the Home Ministry under the Printing Presses and Publication Act.  On 25th September 2017 Mustafa Akyol, a respected international scholar on Islam, who was invited as a speaker for a series of talks on Islam organised by IRF, was briefly detained and questioned by the police and the religious authority JAWI for allegedly teaching Islam without official credential. Dr. Ahmad Farouk Musa, Chairman and Director of IRF was questioned by JAWI on 2nd October 2017 under Section 43 of the Shariah Offences Act 1997 (Federal Territories) for allegedly abetting with Mustafa Akyol. 

Considering all these depressing developments, it is hard to be optimistic with the state of human rights in Malaysia for the year 2018 and beyond. However, we do not have the luxury of giving up or slowing down. 

As the world marks the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 2018, and Malaysia to have its 14th General Election, Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia urges all Malaysians to stop this rot by taking up the cause of human rights. We must stand firm and strive hard for a Malaysia that is united by human rights and human dignity, which should demonstrate these characteristics:

·         Freedoms of thought, speech, assembly and association, and by extension religious, linguistic and cultural inclusion, protected from both state and private encroachment;;

·         Governments chosen through free and fair elections, with effective mechanisms to curb distortion of electoral mandate and under-representation of women and minorities;

·         Impartiality and integrity of Judiciary, Attorney General’s Chambers, Bureaucracy, Police, Military and all other unelected public institutions; 

·         Socio-economic inclusion and sustainable development to ensure everyone can live with basic needs fulfilled, equal opportunity to pursue life goals and dignity.

Only a Malaysia where everyone’s right as human is guaranteed, can we have sustainable unity, prosperity and stability. 


Issued by
Zaid Kamaruddin,
Chair, Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia

Singaporean Jolovan Wham - 52 Malaysian Groups Speak out & Urgent Appeal by the Observatory

$
0
0
URGENT APPEAL - THE OBSERVATORY

 

SGP 001 / 1217 / OBS 117
Judicial harassment
Singapore
December 8, 2017


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

Description of the situation:
 
The Observatory has been informed by reliable sources about the judicial harassment against Mr. Jolovan Wham, social worker, human rights advocate, and former Executive Director of the NGO Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME)[1], and eight other activistsfor the exercise of their right to peaceful assembly.

According to the information received, on November 28, 2017, Mr. Jolovan Whan was detained at the Central Police Station in Singapore, and released on bail later that day.

On November 29, 2017, the State Court charged Mr. Jolovan Wham with: 1) "organising public assemblies without a permit", under the Public Order Act (three charges); 2) "vandalism", under the Vandalism Act (one charge); and 3) "refusing to sign statements", under Article 180 of the Criminal Code (three charges). The seven charges are related to three peaceful gatherings held by various activists, including Mr. Jolovan Wham, in Singapore between November 2016 and July 2017 without obtaining prior permission from the police.

Under Article 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act, organising a public assembly without obtaining police permit is an offense that is punishable with fines of up to SGD 5,000 (approx. 3,140 Euros). Repeat offenders can be fined up to SGD 10,000 (approx. 6,280 Euros) or imprisoned for up to six months, or both. Under Article 3 of the Vandalism Act, the offence of vandalism is punishable with a fine not exceeding SGD 2,000 (approx. 1256 Euros) or imprisonment not exceeding three years.

The three peaceful gatherings from which the charges under the Public Order Act stem were: 1) a forum to discuss civil disobedience and social movement (held on November 26, 2016); 2) a silent protest on a Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) train to mark the 30th anniversary of the detention without trial of 22 people under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) as part of Operation Spectrum in May-June 1987 (held on June 3, 2017); and (3) a candlelight vigil outside Changi Prison to support the family of Prabagaran Srivijayan, a Malaysian national, awaiting execution for drug trafficking (held on July 13, 2017)[2].

Moreover, on December 5, 2017, eight other activists who took part in the three above-referenced peaceful assemblies reported themselves voluntarily to the police and were given warnings that may be facing charges should they participate in other gatherings.

The Observatory denounces the judicial harassment of Mr. Jolovan Wham and the other above-mentioned activists, which only aims at punishing them for their peaceful and legitimate human rights activities and the exercise of their right to peaceful assembly.

Actions requested:

Please write to the Singaporean authorities to urge them to:

i.     Drop all charges against Mr. Jolovan Wham;

ii.   Put an end to all forms of harassment, including at the judicial level, against Mr. Jolovan Wham, the above-mentioned demonstrators and all human rights defenders in the country so that they are able to carry out their work without hindrance;

iii. Ensure full respect for the right to peaceful assembly in accordance with relevant international human rights standards;

iv. Comply with the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, in particular with its Articles 1, 6(c) and 12.2;

v. Ensure in all circumstances respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

Addresses:

·     Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore, Fax: +65 63328983/68356621, Email: pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg; Twitter: @leehsienloong
·     Mr. Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs, Minister of Law, Fax: +65 62546250/ 633 28842, Email: mha_feedback@mha.gov.sg;
·     Mr. Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Fax: +65 64747885, Email: mfa@mfa.sg;
·     Mr. Lucien Wong, Attorney General, Fax: +65 6538 9000
·     H.E. Mr Foo Kok Jwee, Ambassador, Permanent Mission of Singapore in Geneva, Switzerland, Fax: +41-22-796 8078, E-mail: mfa_geneva@mfa.gov.sg;
·     H.E. Mr. Jaya Ratnam, Ambassador, Embassy of Singapore in Brussels, Belgium, Fax: +32 2 660 8685; Email: singemb_bru@mfa.sg

Please also write to the diplomatic representations of Singapore in your respective countries.
 
***
Paris-Geneva, December 8, 2017

Kindly inform us of any action undertaken quoting the code of this appeal in your reply.

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

To contact the Observatory, call the emergency line:
·   E-mail: Appeals@fidh-omct.org
·   Tel and fax OMCT +41 22 809 49 39 / +41 22 809 49 29
·   Tel and fax FIDH + 33 (0) 1 43 55 25 18 / +33 1 43 55 18 80


Joint Statement: Malaysians in solidarity with Jolovan Wham

We are a group of concerned Malaysian citizens who are alarmed and disappointed by Singapore’s prosecution of the renowned social worker and activist Jolovan Wham.

Jolovan was charged with 7 offences under the Public Order Act, Vandalism Act, and the Penal Code for his peaceful and non-violent acts. He was alleged to have organized three unlawful assemblies, which involves holding a vigil outside Changi Prison for Malaysian death row inmate Prabagaran Srivijayan who was to be executed at dawn, organising an assembly without permit in a train and a forum involving Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong through skype.

In the alleged silent protest on an MRT train, Jolovan and eight others hold the book 1987: Singapore’s Marxist Conspiracy 30 Years On to commemorate “Operation Spectrum”, a security operation initiated by Singapore government in 1987. Jolovan faces a vandalism charge for sticking two A4 size papers on the train during the event. He also faces three counts of refusal to sign his recorded statement under the Penal Code.

Jolovan is a renowned social worker and activist. He bravely speaks up for the voiceless, the weak and the oppressed - no matter what race, class or gender. Jolovan was recognized for his excellent social work, for he received “Promising Social Worker Award” in 2011, and the award was conferred by the President of Singapore. When he was serving as the executive director of HOME (Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics), he fought for the rights of migrant workers in Singapore who suffered abuse and ill-treatment by employers. At the same time, he has been a staunch advocate of free speech and a human rights champion who speaks against death penalty and detention without trial.

Jolovan also initiated solidarity activities in Singapore to support social movements in other parts of Asia, such as Hong Kong and Malaysia. For example, after the 13th Malaysian general election, he organized cross-border solidarity activities to support fair and clean elections in Malaysia, not to mention his support for Malaysia’s largest rally in recent years, Bersih. He also shows untiring supports for Malaysian death row inmates in Singapore such as Prabagaran Srivijayan.

We believe that Jolovan is the conscience of Singapore who bravely speaks up for the voiceless, who opposes unjust treatment and policies towards the marginalized. What is even more admirable of Jolovan is that, while fighting for minority rights in Singapore, he always goes beyond national borders and boundaries. His solidarity activities show that Singapore’s civic movement not only fights for Singaporeans, but also speaks for worldwide democracies and marginalized foreigners in Singapore. He demonstrates how Singaporeans and Singapore civil society can join forces and unite with democratic movements around the world.

The prosecution of Jolovan is a scare tactic to silence dissidents in Singapore. Non-violent and peaceful assembly is meant to raise awareness among the public to achieve a democratic society, and thus it is not reasonable for Singapore government to charge him with these criminal laws.

Recently, we find that Singapore government is acting more actively to suppress dissidents. Besides Jolovan, other individuals are facing arrests and investigation include editor of The Online Citizen Terry Xu and journalist Kirsten Han, who were investigated for participating the vigil activity for Prabagaran Srivijayan; activist Rachel Zeng also faces investigation for organizing the skype forum with Joshua Wong; and artist Seelan Palay, who was arrested for his performance outside parliament to commemorate the 32-year detention of Chia Thye Poh.

Singapore ranks No. 1 in the world in many sectors, but its disregard of freedom of speech and assembly and its harsh actions towards dissidents are utterly disappointing. We support Jolovan and other human rights advocates in Singapore, and condemn the use of draconian laws against dissidents. We urge the Attorney General of Singapore to drop the charges against Jolovan and cease all proceedings against him.

We also call for Singapore to review its law to protect freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, to show the world that Singapore government is committed to democracy and the protection of the rights of its citizens.

We refuse to keep silent when confronted with injustice. As issues of human rights and humanitarian ideals transcend national boundaries, we urge citizens of Singapore and Malaysia to stand in solidarity with Jolovan Wham.

联署声明:谴责新加坡政府无理提控,大马人声援范国瀚

我们是一群关心新加坡人权和公民社会状况的大马公民团体。对于新加坡社运工作者范国瀚(Jolovan Wham)被控7项罪,我们感到惊讶与失望。

范国瀚因“无准证举办集会”在公共秩序法令下被控三项罪:他被指在樟宜监狱外为将被绞刑的大马死刑犯普拉巴卡兰(Prabagaran Srivijayan)举行烛光会;在地铁上组织“无声抗议”活动,以及通过skype与香港社运分子黄之锋进行连线对谈时,无准证举行室内集会。

在地铁上的无声抗议活动中,范国瀚与其他八人在车厢里沉默站着,拿起《1987:新加坡的马克思主义阴谋30年后》(1987: Singapore’s Marxist Conspiracy 30 Years On)一书阅读,抗议新加坡政府在1987年发动的“光谱行动”。范国瀚也因当时在地铁上贴上两张A4纸而被控破坏公物。他也因数次拒绝签署警方的口供声明,而被控触犯刑事法典。

范国瀚是新加坡知名社工和社运人士,长期无畏无惧为新加坡各种族、阶级和性别弱势发声,甚至获得新加坡总统在2011年颁发“有为社工奖”(Promising Social Worker Award)。他担任移工人道组织“情义之家”(HOME)执行长期间,竭力为被雇主虐待的移工谋取福利,多次与无良雇主和新加坡人力资源部斡旋;同时,他也是反对死刑和无审讯拘留的人权斗士,积极争取司法正义。

范国瀚长期关注亚洲各地如大马和香港的人权状况,并在新加坡发起连带声援活动,例如支持香港2014年的民主运动。而在2013年大马全国大选后,他在新加坡芳林公园演说者角落举办 “新加坡人声援大马”活动,抗议选举不公,跨界支持大马民主进程。他也在新加坡声援净选盟集会,以及如普拉巴卡兰等被判死刑的大马人。

我们认为,范国瀚是新加坡的良心,勇敢为弱势发声,反对不公不义的政策和状况。更令人钦佩的是,他过去在争取各弱势阶层权利之时,超越新加坡国界和各种藩篱,让新加坡的公民运动不止为新加坡人发声,也为境外民主人权发声,为境内弱势群体发声,展现世界各地民主运动积极连带的团结意识和行动。

新加坡政府对范国瀚的严厉起诉,是杀一儆百的做法,只为了让异议者噤声。范国瀚是以非暴力的和平手段发声,旨在提高人民醒觉,达致民主社会,新加坡政府不应以严厉的刑事罪提控他。

近年来,新加坡政府对异议分子的打压更趋严厉,除了范国瀚以外,不少进步人士也受到调查和对付,例如独立媒体《线上公民》(The Online Citizen)编辑许渊臣(Terry Xu)和独立记者韩俐颖(Kirsten Han),也因参与声援大马死刑犯的烛光会而被调查;社运分子Rachel Zeng因和范国瀚共同举办黄之锋连线活动也被调查;而艺术家 Seelan Palay也因在国会外举着一面镜子纪念被监禁32年的谢太宝,而被逮捕。

虽然,新加坡在国际多项指标位居第一,却无视人民的言论和集会自由,以高压手段对付异议,令人失望。我们支持范国瀚和其他新加坡的人权斗士,谴责新加坡政府以严刑峻法对付异议,并呼吁新加坡总检察长撤销对范国瀚的所有起诉。

我们也呼吁新加坡政府修法保障言论自由与和平集会活动,让世界各地关心民主的人士看见新加坡政府为民主付出的努力。

面对不公不义,我们拒绝沉默。人权与人道精神超越国界,我们呼吁新马支持民主人士,与范国瀚站在一起!

联署团体 Endorsed by:
1. Aliran 国民醒觉运动
2. Amateur业余者
3. Angkatan Warga Aman Malaysia (WargaAMAN)
4. Baramkini 当今峇南
5. Buku Jalanan Shah Alam 街头书坊沙亚南分部
6. Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC) 原住民关怀中心
7. Center to Combat Corruption & Cronyism (C4) 反贪污与朋党主义中心
8. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) 独立新闻中心
9. Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH 2.0) 干净公平选举联盟2.0
10. Community Development Centre (CDC) 社区关怀中心
11. Damn the Dams Action Group 反水坝行动小组
12. ENGAGE愿景工程
13. Federation of Malaysian Indian Organisation (PRIMA)
14. Imagined Malaysia
15. Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT) 受压迫人民阵线
16. Johor Yellow Flame (JYF) 柔南黄色行动小组
17. Kedai Buku Mak Ali
18. KLSCAH Civil Rights Committee 隆雪华堂民权委员会
19. KLSCAH Youth Section隆雪华堂青年团
20. Lawyer for Liberty捍卫自由律师团
21. Let's Art At Sawit Center沙威文创社
22. Malaysia Christian for Justice
23. Malaysia Muda 马来西亚青年
24. Malaysia Youth & Student Democratic Movement (DEMA)马来西亚青年与学生民主运动
25. Malaysian Indians Progressive Association (MIPAS) 大马印裔进步协会
26. Malaysian Indians Transformation Action Team (MITRA)
27. Malaysian Youth Care Association (PRIHATIN)
28. Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)大马反死刑与酷刑组织
29. Meonet 大马选举监督网络
30. Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation (MSN)
31. National Human Rights Society (HAKAM) 大马人权协会
32. North South Initiative (NSI)
33. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) 马来西亚社会主义党
34. Perak Civic Forum 霹雳公民论坛
35. Persahabatan Semparuthi 大红花之友
36. Persatuan ALUMNI PBT USM Bahagian Utara 北马理华同学会
37. Persatuan Komuniti Prihatian Selangor dan KL
38. Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)
39. Persatuan Pendidikan Du Zhong Pulau Pinang 槟城独中教育基金会
40. Persatuan Rapat Malaysia (RAPAT)
41. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita, Selangor (PSWS)雪兰莪妇女之友协会
42. Pusat Komas 社区传播中心
43. Pusat Sejarah Rakyat 人民历史中心
44. Sahabat Rakyat 人民之友
45. Selangor & Kuala Lumpur Hokkien Association Youth Wing雪兰莪暨吉隆坡福建会馆青年团
46. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) 人民之声
47. Sunflower Electoral Education Movement (SEED) 向日葵选举教育运动
48. Tenaganita Womens Force 大马妇女力量
49. Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy赵明福民主基金会
50. Thinking Society思辨会社
51. Writers' Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI) 维护媒体独立撰稿人联盟
52. Yayasan Usman Awang 乌士曼阿旺基金会

DDA amendments better, but anti-drug policy needs overhaul(Malaysiakini)

$
0
0

DDA amendments better, but anti-drug policy needs overhaul

Published:     Modified:


COMMENT | Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) welcomes the fact that the government has amended the Bill to amend Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which now provides for the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking. The Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017, as amended, was passed after the third reading on Nov 30 at the Dewan Rakyat.

This amending Bill has been amended to remove the earlier precondition of a Public Prosecutor’s written certification of assistance before judges had the discretion in sentencing, that will allow the imposition of the life imprisonment sentence instead of the death penalty. This amendment vide Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Bill - Amendment in Committee (D.R.45/2017) amended the Bill entitled the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017.

After the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017, a number of groups and persons including Madpet expressed dissatisfaction that judges, according to Section 2 of the original amendment Bill, would only be able to exercise discretion during sentencing if and only when the "Public Prosecutor certifies in writing to the court, that in his determination, the person convicted has assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia".

Proving 'assistence'

On Nov 30, the need for the public prosecutor's certification was removed. The words “the Public Prosecutor certifies in writing to the court that in his determination” was removed and replaced with the word “that”.

This would mean that one of the points that the judge now must consider before sentencing is passed is that "the person convicted has assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia".

Whilst this is better, there still remains the concern whether persons convicted would really be able to provide such assistance, and when will such assistance be required to be provided.

Rightly, that assistance should be provided only after one has been tried and convicted. To suggest otherwise would be most prejudicial to the accused person, and it may be seen as forcing accused persons into doing things that are self-incriminatory, including statements that will assist the prosecution to get a conviction in the face of a threat of being sentenced and put to death.

This is most unacceptable especially in capital cases, where if one is convicted, it may result in the imposition of the death sentence.

We know that many a time, drug trafficking is usually carried out by kingpins and their criminal organisations, and as such, there is also a real risk that any such "assistance" by the convicted person may bring to them and/or their families retaliation and/or harm, more so when the fact of this assistance is made known.

As such, Malaysia must develop a substantive witness protection scheme that will ensure the safety of the convicted as well as their families, if need be.

The other concern is the fact that some of the convicted may have very little information, not sufficient to have "assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia", noting that the words used on the face of it indicate assistance was given "...has assisted...".

One can only provide assistance as much as one is able to, and it may sometimes be seen as not being useful or sufficient to assist any enforcement agency. As such, what is expected to escape the death sentence may still be unreasonable.

It may have been better, if all that is required was what a person reasonably could have done to assist, irrespective of whether it really assisted the enforcement agency or not. Until there is an amendment, it is hoped that when judges do consider this element of "assistance", reasonableness and reality is also considered.

Also, it was also disappointing to note that the new amendments to the Bill did not address the concern as to what will happen to the 800 or more still on death row for drug trafficking. It was best that all their sentences be forthwith commuted to imprisonment.

Retrials likely

If and when this amendment comes into force, it will apply also to cases where the trial had started but the accused has not yet been convicted.

There are serious concerns about trials that are already started. Evidence will have been adduced, challenged and/or rebutted in these trials where both the accused and prosecution were operating under the belief that on conviction, there will only be the mandatory death penalty.

As such, even when the amendment comes into force, it will only be just if there be a new trial before a new judge, given the fact that the strategy and conduct of the trial would most likely be very different given the fact judges would now, after the amendment comes into force, the discretion to not sentence the convicted to death.

In light of the upcoming amendment to Section 39B, Madpet calls for the immediate stop of all Section 39B trials pending the coming into force the amendment that gives judges the discretion to impose a sentence other than the death sentence. There should be new trials before different judges for all these cases.

It was also revealed by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Azalina Othman Said, that prison department statistics revealed that from 2000 until 2017, of 113 persons were sentenced to death under Section 39B, only 11 were executed, whilst another 122 persons have been pardoned and had their death sentence commuted to life imprisonment.

There was, however, no disclosure as to why some were executed and others had their sentences commuted. Did diplomatic concerns or other unacceptable considerations have a part to play in these decisions as to who lives and who is hanged to death?

Madpet urges that the death sentence of all persons on death row, especially for drug trafficking, be immediately commuted to imprisonment.

Death penalty is not a deterrent 

The minister also stated that the police statistics reveal an increase of drug cases every year despite the drastic measures taken by the police, which we could take as including the fact of the existence of the mandatory death penalty for Section 39B.

Since January 2014 until October 2017, 702,319 individuals have been arrested by the police for the offence of trafficking and possession of drugs.

A total of 21,731 persons were arrested under Section 39B, whereby investigation papers were opened for 13,036 persons and 10,878 persons were charged in court. The minister also revealed that 68 drug kingpins were arrested during this period, while 106 illegal laboratories were raided, resulting in the arrest of 409.

The death penalty for drug trafficking came into being in 1975, and in 1983, there was an amendment that brought in the mandatory death penalty. It is clear now that even the mandatory death penalty has not deterred people from committing the offence. On the contrary, there has been an increase of persons committing the crime.

As such, merely giving the judges the option of handing out the death sentence or life imprisonment (with at least 15 strokes of the whip) needs to be reviewed. Severe punishment does not serve as a deterrent, and as such, we should be looking at rehabilitation and second chances to persons convicted of even the crime of drug trafficking.

Our concerns should be rehabilitation, and it is certainly most unjust to be sentencing a first time offender or a young person to life imprisonment.

Madpet would suggest that Section 39B should be further amended setting a minimum sentence of 5 to 10 years, as this will be more just. Judges will then have discretion to impose the appropriate sentence depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Malaysia also needs to look at the reasons why people commit this mandatory death penalty crime. One of the main causes may be poverty. Hence, the way forward in reducing the crime of drug trafficking (or other crimes driven by poverty) may be addressing the socio-economic conditions that drive people to be willing to risk their life and liberty for monies.

Madpet also urges that all persons arrested for drug offences be accorded the right to a fair trial and that detention without trial laws like the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 not be used.

Madpet also would like to remind the Malaysian government that they are looking at abolishing the death penalty, especially the mandatory death penalty, for all crimes, not just drug trafficking. Whilst we welcome this move to abolish the mandatory death penalty for Section 39B, we urge that the abolition of the mandatory death penalty is expedited.

Madpet reiterates its call for the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia, and for the imposition of an immediate moratorium on all executions pending abolition.


The views expressed here are those of the authors/contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.



See related posts:- 

Sometimes the government listens - PP's green light before judge exercise discretion removed?

MADPET - JUDGE’S DISCRETION TO NOT IMPOSE DEATH PENALTY ONLY IF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GIVES CERTIFICATION IS WRONG


 
 

Students - human rights defenders for the poor and marginalised in Malaysia?

$
0
0
Human Rights and  the Student Movement? The students and the youths generally have been in the forefront of the struggle for human rights especially for the poor and marginalized...the landless poor, poor farmers, urban settlers...

The Teluk Gong struggle began as a struggle by poor landless peasants to obtain land. In 1967, the peasants, led by Hamid Tuah, cleared some forest land in the Teluk Gong region of Selangor where they tilled the land and built houses.Not long afterwards, the government destroyed the crops and demolished the houses of the peasants. Hamid Tuah and his followers were arrested.The cruelty inflicted by the government upon the poor peasants of Teluk Gong was angrily denounced by the students of the University of Malaya.
 
Fighting four your own rights when you are affected is good - but Human Rights Defenders who struggle for rights and justice of others, where victory will really not bring them any benefit safe the satisfaction of upholding the cause of justice and human rights is better.
The Tasik Utara incident occured in September 1974. It involved poor, predominantly Malay squatters who openly opposed the government. in the case of Teluk Gong, the Tasik Utara incident virtually invited student involvement. Tasik Utara is situated about three miles from the centre of Johor Baru where housing is a serious problem.The houses in the town are expensive to rent, which workers cannot afford...However after the Barisan Nasional emerged victorious in the General Elections, the leaders appeared to forget the promises they had made to the squatters.The residents of Kampung Barisan Nasional got a rude shock when they received eviction notices from the land office warning them that their homes were to be demolished.
In Malaysia, being a HR Defender is tough - you may end up arrested, imprisoned, expelled or suspended from university, terminated from your employment, ridiculed.....yes, a lot of RISKS but still many are willing to take the risk for a better world...a better Malaysia. The risks will always be there ...and one can choose indifference or self interests, or we can be Human Rights Defenders...for the greater good of the human community...

The Baling events began on l9th November 1974, when more than 1,000 peasants demonstrated.Their demonstrations continued on the 20th and 21 st November. On the 21 st, more than 13,000 people from Baling and the surrounding areas....Why did the farmers in Baling demonstrate? the answer lies in the misery and suffering they were facing. Inflation from 1973 had caused the prices of food and other basic necessities to soar....They bravely took to the streets to protest and urge the government to raise the price of rubber and lower the price of food and other necessities within 10 days...The struggle of the peasants was supported by students from the universities and other institutions of higher learning throughout the country.A big demonstration by 5,000 students was held on 3rd Decernber 1974...
In any struggle for justice or rights - it is always best to struggle with others (in solidarity) - though at times, it still may boil down to acting alone if others are simply too fearful or disinterested in struggling for justice and human rights/.  
Of late, students in large numbers seem to missing in the struggle for human rights ...Now, even the issues that they seem to be taking up are issues of personal concerns as students - 'academic freedom', scholarship/student loans ... What happened? Are they no longer going to champion causes of the poor and marginalized? 


The Student Movement In Malaysia, 1967 - 74



From: Hassan Karim

The student movement in Malaysia has its origins before the second World War. In the early 1930s, teacher trainees from the Sultan Idris Training College established the KMM or Kesatuan Melayu Muda (Young Malay Union), which opposed British colonialism and desired independence.

In the fifties, students at the University of Malaya (established in 1949), then located in Singapore, enjoyed close relations with the anti-colonial movement, including nationalist journalists and unionists.

Thus, university students were actively involved in the struggle for independence. The development of the student movement at the University of Malaya in Singapore continued until the university moved to its Kuala Lumpur (K.L.) campus from 1959. In the early K.L. years, the character of student activities was different.

Students focussed instead on campus issues, especially in connection with student welfare matters. The emergence of the social and political dimensions of the student movement began around 1967.

Various events during that year distinguish it as a year of transition in the history of the student movement. From 1967, the student movement gradually advanced once again. In the following years, as it became more vocal, it became a force to be reckened with in the political upheavals of the country.

Several more universities were set up from 1969, a development which helped to strengthen and increase the influence of the student movement, The universities formed were Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (UPM).

The increase in the number of universities meant an increase in the nurnber of university students. At the same time, more and more students from poor and rural backgrounds obtained places in universities.

These students were to play an important role in the student struggles in the years to come.

1967: The Year of Transition

1967 is regarded as the transition year for the student movement as students began to raise vital issues relating to the lives of the people.

In the historic Teluk Gong landless squatter struggle, both the University of Malaya Students Union (UMSU) and the University of Malaya Malay Language Society (PBMUM) were directly involved.

In 1967 also, a symposium on problems faced by rural communities was held at the University of Malaya.

The fact that this symposium was sponsored by the PBMUM is significant, as prior to this, the PBMUM had mainly confined itself to issues of Malay culture and language.

In addition to this, 1967 saw the founding of the Socialist Club of the University of Malaya, the only political club in the University.

Its founding represented a new era for the student movement, and its influence on the Ma.laysian student movement was not insignificant.

In 1967, the student movement was still concentrated in the University of Malaya, though teacher-training colleges had their own student organizations.

This can be explained by the fact that conditions in the University of Malaya differed from the conditions in these colleges.

Various student bodies were to be found in the University of Malaya. The largest of these was UMSU, which represented all students of the University of Malaya.

By virtue of this, it had members from all racial groups. Other important student bodies included the PBMUM, th.e Chinese Language Society (CLS), The Tamil Language Society (TLS) and the University of Malaya Islamic Students Society (PMIUM) all of which were affiliated to UMSU.

Only the Socialist Club maintained autonomy. In 1967 too, several student bodies were led by progressive individuals like Syed Hamid Ali, who became the Secretary General of UMSU, and Sanusi Osman, who became President of the PBMUM. Both were also members of the Socialist Club.

The Teluk Gong Struggle

UM students listening to Sharifah Mahani Syed Hamzah talking about the oppression of the peasants inTeluk Gong.

The Teluk Gong struggle began as a struggle by poor landless peasants to obtain land. In 1967, the peasants, led by Hamid Tuah, cleared some forest land in the Teluk Gong region of Selangor where they tilled the land and built houses.

Not long afterwards, the government destroyed the crops and demolished the houses of the peasants. Hamid Tuah and his followers were arrested.

The cruelty inflicted by the government upon the poor peasants of Teluk Gong was angrily denounced by the students of the University of Malaya.

Both UMSU and the PBMUM came out in open support of the unfortunate peasants. Several lecturers followed suit and also supported the struggle of Hamid Tuah and the peasants.

The involvement of students in the Teluk Gong incident was an important event in their struggle to uplift the poor, though their awareness of the life of the poor had previously been expressed in the form of seminars and symposiums.

The Teluk Gong incident enabled them to come forward to declare their stand. The Teluk Gong events clearly and dramatically highlighted the problem of rural poverty.

Poverty, which had its roots in landlessness or land hunger captured the attention of students, and became an important issue in the student struggle in the years to come.

1968: National & International Issues

An important national issue raised in 1968 was the National Education Policy; the PBMUM held a symposium on this subject.

For the PBMUM and many Malay students, the struggle for the sovereignity of the Malay language and the National Education Policy were important dimensions of their struggle.

In 1968, while the PBMUM was involved in the above causes, UMSU the National Union of Malaysian Students (PKPM) and the Socialist Club to raise such issues.

The invasion of Czechoslavakia by the Soviet Uniori in 1968 was met with widespread international opposition.

The students of the University of Malaya joined the protest and staged a demonstration outside the Soviet Embassy in Kuala Lumpur. Being the first demonstration by the students outside the campus, this was a historic event.

For the first time too, students were confronted with police brutality and tear gas. Undeniably, events outside the country contributed to increasing political awareness amongst students.

The revolt of French students against De Ganlle in 1968, for example, had a big impact on students all over the world.

So it was to be that in the years that followed, international issues were raised by students from time to time.
In 1971, the oppression of Muslims in Pattani was championed as was the Palestinian issue in 1973.

1969: A Year of Upheaval

Student became increasingly involved in national politics from 1969. In the months of April and May, before the May General Elections, PMUM held several public rallies throughout the country.

As many as 13 rallies were held, with a total attendence of 100,000 people. Over 100,000 PMUM manifestoes were distributed at these'rallies.

The contents of the PMUM manifesto for 1969 are important as they represent the issues that students were then championing.

Democracy was an important element in the manifesto as students wanted the people to be more involved in the decesion-making processes and for national politics to be truely based on democracy.

They demanded that freedom and justice be guaranteed, an improvement of the economic status of the people, land reform and a truely national education policy.

Students also demanded the unconditional release of all political detainees and called for the withdrawal of foreign military bases on Malaysian soil.

The demands of the 1969 PMUM manifesto clearly reflect the progressive character of the student movement then, which had also become a political force to be reckoned with.

The government was unhappy over the good response the rallies received in several big towns, and disallowed students from holding rallies in towns, particularly on the East Coast.

The rallies organised by UMSU were an important development in the history of the student struggle. It involved a direct involvement by students in the political process in Malaysia.

Students raised the issues of democracy and social justice, and STUDENT MOVEMENT TODAY 5 denounced political parties that capitalized on racial issues. Students who were socialists formed the backbone of these UMSU rallies.

After May 13: The Campaign to Topple the Tunku

The period after May l3th was one of great challenges. In the aftermath of May l3th a campaign to replace Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Malaysian Prime Minister erupted.

In this heated campaign, students particulary Malay students urged the Tunku to step down. The students were forthright and brave in their demands.

A series of demonstrations were held within the campus as part of this campaign. UMSU, led by Syed Hamid Ali, and the PBMUM, led by Anwar Ibrahim, played important roles in this cam~paign against the Tunku.

The efforts of the students were not in vain, and finally the Tunku was forced to relinguish his Prime Ministership. Historically, the fall of the Tunku was connected in no small way, with the opposition of students to his continued leadership.

In fact Syed Hamid Ali and Anwar Ibrahim had different reasons for wanting to see the last of the Tunku Anwar Ibrahim's opposition was mainly based on the Tunku's and not on the weaknesses of the system of government led by the Tunku.

He felt that the Tunku had conceded too much to the Chinese Community and had not endeavoured enough to overcome the problem of the Malay Community. He saw the Tunku as failing to advance the status of Bahasa Malaysia sufficiently and the implementation of the National Education Policy.

Anwar at no time actually opposed the system of government led by the Tunku. Syed Hamid Ali and the Socialist Club, on the other hand, were particularly opposed to the Tunku's political, and economic, and social policies.

The socialist students opposed the capitalist system, which they saw as being the root cause of poverty.

They were opposed to the influx of foreign investment, which still dominated the economy and wealth of the country and left the majority of the rakyat living in poverty and misery.

They also felt that it was his leadership that had led to racila riots. Students And University Autonomy On the 29th August 1969, police invaded the University of Malaya campus with the intention of disrupting an anti-Tunku demonstration. This was the first time that the police had ventured on to the campus to disrupt student activities. Several students, involving Syed Hamid Ali, then UMSU president were detained. The students protested against the police action, emphasizing that it was a violation of university autonomy.

In the years following, students have always opposed attempts by the government to encroach upon university autonomy.

1970: The Malay Language And The National Education Policy

The struggle by the Malay students of the University of Malaya to advance the Malay language had been underway from at least 1966.

However, it was only in 1970 that the issues of the Malay language and the National Educational Policy emerged as central issues.

These twin issues also caused a racial rift, among students at the university. Even the PMUM and PBMUM differed on these issues.

The struggle to secure the position of the Malay language as the National Language and the National Education Policy have to be viewed in a wider context.

The language issue was symbolic of the opposition to the rule of the Tunku, who was deemed to have failed in improving the lot of the Malay community.

By raising the question of language and education, it was easy to draw the support of the Malay students and also of the Malay community at large. In 1970, the National University of Malaysia (UKM) was founded.

The setting up of this university was viewed as the culmination of efforts to ensure the sovereignity of the Malay language and the implementation of the National Education Policy.

1971: The University Act

The growth of the student movement in the campuses threatened those in power. In 1970, two new universities - the Science University of Malaysia (USM) and the National University of Malaysia (UKM) - were set up.

There was a general increase around this time in the number of universities and institutions of higher learning in Malaysia, many of which were concentrated around Kuala Lumpur: The implications of this for the growth of the student movement alarmed the political elite.

The government began to fear student opposition to government policies as had happened in 1969, and felt that its position would be threatened if the student movement was not curbed.

In 1970 the post-1969 National Operations Council (NOC) formed the Campus Investigative Committee. 

The results of the investigations carried out by this committee became the basis of the University And University Colleges Act, 1971.

Among other things, the Act sought to control and weaken the various student organisations. On l8th March 19?1, the UUCA was passed by the Parliament.

Students rose in unison from all communities and universities, to oppose the Act. They criticised the government for promulgating an Act that underrnined the principles of democracy and freedom of speech.

The students were not alone in their bitter opposition to the Act. Opposition political parties too opposed the Act from within and outside parliament.

Students felt that their basic rights were violated by the Act. Even after the UUCA was implemented as law the students continued to protest against it.

Demonstrations opposing the Act were held within the campus in 1971, 1972 and again in 1973. In 1971, the Act was openly challenged at a massive demonstration to oppose the Thai government's oppression of Muslims in Pattani.

The l4th June 1971 Demonstration The demonstration of l4th June 1971 was the first one to be held outside the campus after implementation of the UUCA.

It was also the first major demonstration of the 1970s. On that day, 2,000 predominantly Malay students - from the National University of Malaysia and the University of Malaya campuses - demonstrated.

Their demonstration was to protest the visit of the then Thai Prime Minister, Thanom Kittikachorn, who was due to arrive that day.

Those who were involved charged the Thai government with responsibility for the ill-treatment of Muslims in Pattani.

Their protest were a sign of their support for the struggle to liberate Muslims in Pattani. The students waited for the Thai Prime Minister on the main roads outside their campuses.

This historic demonstration was organized by the PMIUM, and hence not many non-Malay students were involved.

The demonstration enabled students from the University of Malaya and the National University of Malaysia to show their unity for the first time.

The demonstration saw students in physical confrontation with the police. More than 12 students were injured, and 19 were arrested at the University of Malaya.

This was the first time a university student demonstration in the country had resulted in injury to the students involved.

The demonstration of June l4th continued the following day, when students demonstrated against police brutality and demanded that the government immediately release all the detained students.

1972: Crisis Within UMSU and the PKPM

In 1972, UMSU and the PKPM were in a state of turmoil. The crises within these organisations were the The Teluk Gong struggle began as a struggle by poor landless peasants to obtain land. In 1967, the peasants, led by Hamid Tuah, cleared some forest land in the Teluk Gong region of Selangor result of a lack of basis for unity.

In the absence of rallying points, in-fighting emerged as students tried to capture power in their respective organisations. Whatever the setback caused by this turmoil, it showed that the democratic proses was alive and well in the student movement.

On l9th June 1972, the l4th Council of UMSU, under the leadership of Sim Kim Chiew, was toppled by the Council members themselves.

The conflict between the l4th Council and the editorial board of the UMSU newspaper, Mahasiswa Negara, represented a serious setback to the student left of the university, as many council members were members of the Socialist Club as well.

The students who opposed the l4th Council used racial issues to garner support to topple the council.

Hence, the fall of the l4th Council was tantamount to a defeat for the student left. In 1972, the left failed to maintain leadership of the PKPM.

Hishamuddin Rais, a dynamic leader of the student left, who had become the Secretary-General of the PKPM, was replaced in, 1972.

Traditionally, the PKPM had been led by student leaders from the University of Malaya. However, with the establishment of more universities in the 1970s, many student leaders from other universities came to the fore and broke the previous UMSU monopoly in the PKPM.

1972 also saw the decline in the influence of the Socialist Club. Many of its important members left the university on completing their studies, and at the end of 1972, the strength of the club was at its weakest.

Thus, in early 1973, the club was thoroughly reorganised after a membership drive. The drive strengthened the club with new and dedicated members, and the Socialist Club emerged once again as an important force in the University of Malaya campus politics.

The emergence of the Socialist Club was evident in the UMSU elections of 1973, when many Socialist Club members were elected into the Council and Hishamuddin Rais became UMSU Secretary-General.

Furthermore,1973 also saw growing co-operation among student orgarrisations from the various universities. Student bodies from UM, UKM, USM, UTM, UPM and ITM united to oppose the government on issues such as corruption and the UUCA.

1973 : Anti-American Demonstration

Malaysian student opposition to U.S. imperialism has long been strong. Students from different political tendencies could unite to oppose U.S. imperialism, as happened in 1973.

The Arab-Israeli war erupted in the Middle-East in October 1973, drawing the attention of the whole world. The struggle of the Arab and the Palestinian people to regain Palestinian and Arab territories occupied by Israel was supported by the people of Malaysia.

In Malaysia, students were the first to express their support for and solidarity with the Palestinian and Arab people.

Israel was openly supported by the U S.A., the great imperialist power. U.S. support was opposed not only by the Arabs, but also by all freedom-loving people in the world, including Malaysian students.

On l3th October 1973, students from the University of Malaya under UMSU's leadership, staged a demonstration in front of the U.S.

Embassy in Kuala Lumpur to oppose the U.S. role in the Middle-East war. The police broke up this peaceful demonstration. Tear gas was fired at the students, forcing them to withdraw temporarily.

On l6th October, three days after the peaceful demons tration had been dispersed, 4,000 students demonstrated again outside the US Embassy: As this demonstration was much larger than the one preceding it, the police did not dare interfere.

The PLO representative in Malaysia addressed the students at this historic demonstration, following which students took to the streets and headed for the Lincoln Cultural Centre.

The students charged that the Lincoln Cultural Centre was actually a CIA centre involved in espionage, and urged the government to close it down.

The demonstration on 16th October clearly showed the hatred of the students and the people of Malaysia towards U.S. imperialism.

The students threatened to burn down the centre if it was not closed down. Not long afterwards, the US Embassy changed the location of the Cultural Centre.

It must be noted that students from various universities and institutions of higher learning participated in the anti-U.S. demonstrations.

It is interesting to note that on one occassion the police were too afraid to take any drastic action against the students.

1974: The Peak of Student Activism

1974 is regarded as the peak year for Malaysian university student activism in the 1970s as students were increasingly invol- ved in the people’s issues.

Their slogan, “Students and People Unite”, became a reality.The National Front — comprising a coalition of political parties, including some which had previously been in the opposition, i.e. PAS, Gerakan and the PPP — won the 1974 General Elections, as expected.

As many of the former opposition parties were now on the side of the government, the ranks of the opposition in Malaysia dwindled.

The various student organisations filled this vacuum that had been created by the withering of the parliamentary opposition.

Student organisations emerged as a pressure group and were highly critical of government policies.Perhaps because of their non-partisan approach towards issues, they were able to draw the attention and gain the support of the population at large.

1974 was also a year of great hardship for the people of Malaysia. Inflation had increased rapidly from 1973 and the price of rubber had fallen to record low.

The livelihood of rubber small holders was seriously threatened. The people faced many difficulties as the prices of basic necessities soared. Shortages in housing and jobs further exacerbated the situation.

September 1974 Tasik Utara

The Tasik Utara incident occured in September 1974. It involved poor, predominantly Malay squatters who openly opposed the government.

As in the case of Teluk Gong, the Tasik Utara incident virtually invited student involvement. Tasik Utara is situated about three miles from the centre of Johor Baru where housing is a serious problem.

The houses in the town are expensive to rent, which workers cannot afford. As the government had not taken any steps to provide low-cost housing for the urban poor, many of them were forced to become squatters.

Not long before the General Elections of 1974, several poor families set up squatter houses in Tasik Utara. They were not stopped, not even by Land Office officials.

News of this spread and not long afterwards, more poor families, including factory workers, "we want justice,we want land"Tasik Utara demonstration,1974

government labourers, hawkers, taxi and lorry drivers, moved in.

Barisan Nasional leaders canvassing votes at Tasik Utara assured the squatters that their homes would be protected. The 134 families who set up their homes in Tasik Utara called their village, Kampung Barisan Nasional.

However after the Barisan Nasional emerged victorious in the General Elections, the leaders appeared to forget the promises they had made to the squatters.

The residents of Kampung Barisan Nasional got a rude shock when they received eviction notices from the land office warning them that their homes were to be demolished.

The residents appealed to the government against the demolition. They called upon the government to provide them with an hering of the parliamentary OPPO alternative site on which they could build their homes.

Their appeals fell on deaf ears. In despair, the squatters got in touch with UMSU hoping that UMSU would come to their aid. The hopes of the squatters were not in vain.

As soon as UMSU received the telegram from the squatters, several students, including UMSU leaders, made their way to Johore Bahru.

On the morning of September 15th, several police trucks arrived at Tasik Utara. The squatters homes were demolished.Students of the University of Malaya led by Hishamuddin Rais pleaded with the authorities to call off the demolition, but their protests were in vain.

Nine people, including Syed Hamid Ali, the Secretary General of the People's Socialist Party of Malaya (PSRM), were arrested. They were released the following day however after interrogation.

After the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) personnel and the demolition teams had departed, the squatters rebuilt their homes.

However, on l6th September, the FRU and the demolition squad descended once again on the kampung and demolished the rebuilt homes. They carried out their work with brutal efficiency.

Planks and posts were split so that they could not be used again as building materials. They destroyed the atap (roofing material) and were rude to the squatters, who included women and children.

The students personally witnessed these brutal actions with their own eyes. On the l6th of September, after their homes had been demolished for the second time, the squatters - 60 families and about 300 people consisting of men, women, children and a baby camped outside the Johore State Secretariat Building, where they picketed day and night.

They put up banners, one of which read "We demand justice. We want land." At 3.15 a.m. on the l9th of September, the police and the FRU quietly entered the camp site and arrested 5 people.

Those who were detained included: Kaliman Jaya, a squatter leader, Hishamuddin Rais, Secretary-General of the PMUM, Yunus Ali, an exco member of the PMUM, Syed Hamid Ali, Secretary General of the PSRM, and Mohammed Amin Ahmad, Secretary of the PSRM, Johore.

The just struggle of the squatters was supported by student organisations in all the campuses. UMSU, PMUKM, KSITM, PMUSM, PMUPM, the Socialist Club and the CLS of the University of Malaya all released press statements in support of the squatters.

The University of Singapore Students Union(USSU) also came out in their support. Students in Malaysia and Singapore collected funds to aid the unfortunate squatters of Tasik Utara.

The detention of several student leaders on l9th September provoked and deepened the students' struggle, particularly in the University of Malaya.

On the 20th of September, more than 2,500 students from the University of Malaya demonstrated outside the Prime Minister's Department.

They urged the authorities to release Hishamuddin Rais, Yunus Ali and the others who had been detained in Johore Bahru. This demonstration was indicative of widespread student supporf for the struggle of the Tasik Utara squatters.

When their demands fell on deaf ears, the students planned to demonstrate again on the 21 st of September. More than 2,000 students took to the streets peacefully, making their way to Kuala Lumpur.

The FRU confronted them on their journey and fired tear gas. They also fell upon the students with batons, and many were injured. More than ten students were detained, but they were released soon afterwards, as the authorities were afraid of growing student agitation.

The Power Struggle In The University of Malaya Following the brutal action of the police, UMSU called for an emergency meeting.

The meeting held on 21 st September was attended by all the Residential College Committees and other component bodies of UMSU.

Following an in-depth discussion, it was unanimously agreed that to avoid further police aggression, demonstrations would be held within the campus.

The students also decided to take over the administration of the University of Malaya. The students formed a co-ordinating body called the Majlis Tertinggi Sementara (MTS) or Provisional Supreme Council.

At 2.30 p.m. on 21 st. September the MTS officially took over the UM administration in a peaceful and organised manner. On the same afternoon, however, several self proclaimed `patriotic' students met at the Arts Faculty and formed a `Majlis Tertinggi Nasionalis (MTN) (Nationalist Supreme Council).

They opposed the UMSU decision to form the MTS to take over the university. At 8.30 p.m., members of the MTN advanced to strategic positions held by the MTS, including the UMSU secretariat, the university gates and the security office.

Members of the MTS were forced to leave the UMSU secretariat. They used iron rods, bicycle chains and nailed sticks in their attack. The UMSU president and several other MTS members were kidnapped and forceably taken to the Dewan Tunku Chancellor.

The MTN leaders tried to divert the attention of the students from the real issue at hand. Even the vice-chancellor of the university attempted to break the unity of the students by playing up racial issues.

The Struggle Continues

Even though the leaders of the squatters and the students had been detained, the squatters of Tasik Utara continued to picket in front of the Johore State Secretariat building.

At 5.30 p.m. on 22nd September, the FRU surrounded the picket site and arrested 41 squatters and 7 students.

The squatters and students demonstrated in front of the Johore court-house to protest the arrests. At this demonstration, 3 more students were arrested.

UMSU Suspended

UMSU was to pay a high price for its involvement in the Tasik Utara incident and their decision to take over the university administration.

The government which for a long time had been trying to crush the student movement now had an excuse to act against UMSU.

Several days after USMU took ovesr the campus, the government suspended it.

The Baling Events

If the Tasik Utara incident was the prelude, the Baling incident was "The people suffer,the rulers forget their obligations"

s surely the climax of the student struggle in the post-1969 period.While Tasik Utara is in Johore, in the south, Baling is up north, in Kedah.

The Baling events are important not only in relation to the student's struggle, but also in relation to the history of the present struggle in Malaysia.

The Baling events began on l9th November 1974, when more than 1,000 peasants demonstrated.

Their demonstrations continued on the 20th and 21 st November. On the 21 st, more than 13,000 people from Baling and the surrounding areas of Weng, Bangar, Lanai, Pulai, Kupang, Tawar, Parit Panjang, Kuala Pegang, Siong and Sungai Lalang staged mass demonstrations, which converged on Baling.

Why did the farmers in Baling demonstrate? the answer lies in the misery and suffering they were facing. Inflation from 1973 had caused the prices of food and other basic necessities to soar.

Sugar, which had cost only 30 cents a kati, cost 60 cents; the price of flour rose from 20 cents to 50 cents.

As these prices increased, the price of rubber was falling; affecting a majority of the residents of Baling distriet, who were mostly rubber smallholders.

The price of a kati of rubber could not purchase half a kati of sugar or flour. As a result of their hardships, the peasants were forced to voice their sufferings.

They bravely took to the streets to protest and urge the government to raise the price of rubber and lower the price of food and other necessities within 10 days.

When it became clear that the government was not going to act positively on the demands within the given period, 30,000 people demonstrated in Baling on the 1 st of December 1974.

The people were angry indeed. The struggle of the peasants was supported by students from the universities and other institutions of higher learning throughout the country.

A big demonstration by 5,000 students was held on 3rd Decernber 1974. At a rally held on the same day at the Selangor Club padang in Kuala Lumpur, the students made several demands on the governrpent including.
  1. the government must solve the problem of inflation immediately.
  2. the price of rubber must be raised to reasonable levels.
  3. all corrupt ministers and chief ministers must be exposed and punished.
The government ignored the demands of the students.

The authorities used the police to disperse the demonstration, and students who had gathered peacefully at the Selangor Club field were attacked with tear gas.

The students retreated to the National Mosque, but the FRU even fired tear gas into the mosque and entered it. Altogether, the FRU arrested 1,128 students.

The arrest of the students reignited the students' strug,gle. On the campuses, students continued to demonstrate, and this went on for a few days until the police entered the campuses early in the morning of the 9th of December 1974.

Many of the student leaders were arrested. At the same time, the government also apprehended university lecturers who had supported the struggle of the students and the peasants.

Among those detained were Prof. Syed Husin Ali from the University of Malaya, Anwar Ibrahim, a youth leader; Kamarulzaman Yacob, UMSU President, Ahmad Kamal Selamat, President of PMUSM, Ibrahim Ali, President of KSITM, Rahman Rukhaini, President of PMUKM, and Adi Satria, UMSU's Assistant Secretary-General.

Amendments to the University and University Colleges Act, 1975

Student resistance did not end even with the arrest of so many of its leaders. However, pressure from the government in the form of threats and manipulations and the use of racial issues to undermine student unity resulted in the weakening of the student movement.

The government capitalized on these weaknesses and vulnerability to table new draconian laws in Parliament. The 1975 amendements to the UUCA 1971 were passed by Parliament.

Despite protests from students and opposition parties,the amendments were bull-dozed through Parliament. With the enforcement of the Act, all student organisations were dissolved.

This marked the end of an era when the student movement in Malaysia grew to become an important social and politacal force.

As a substitute, the government set up Student Representative Councils, student bodies which have little power, freedom and authority.

Weaknesses in the Student Movement

Every movement has its weaknesses; the following were some of the weaknesses of the MaIaysian student movemerit which was crushed in the mid 1970s:

The Race Problem

The race problem has always been a factor weakening the Malaysian student rnovement. This was paiticularly evident in the case of the universities which have a large multiracial student population, like the University of Malaya. Despite this, there were many issues on which students from the various races united. Such issues incIuded the struggle for university autonomy, opposition to U.S. imperialism, and popular stntg,gles such as Teluk Gong, Tasik Utara and Baling.

Lack of Experience

The tradition of students struggte in Malaya is still young. Hence, students have Iacked experience in facing challenges that have come their way.

Moreover, the length of courses of study i.e. over 3 or 4 yearss limited student involvement. When good leaders graduated on completion of their studies, continuity and experience were often lost, and not easily replaced.

Lack of Contact With the People

Although the student movement championed peoples' issues from 1967 to 1974, a close study would reveal that the contact After the demonstrations

between students and the people, particularly those in the ruraI areas, was far from being close or intimate.lt was only in 1967 , 1973 and 1974 that efforts to bridge this gap were given more serious attention.

An Issue-Oriented Straggle

A clear weakness of the Malaysian student movement was its heavy issue-orientation, such that activities were only organised as issues came up. Thus, much student activity was spontaneous in nature, and not well-planned. Leaders seldom planned activities with a long term perspective. Many students and their Ieaders were prone to complacency and many developed a care-free, and sometimes even irresponsible attitude. This may be due to the fact that student movements are, by nature, not well-disciplined organizations. This lack of discipline contributed to this negative feature of the student movement.

Lack of Support from Intellectuals

The student movement seldom got support from academics and intellectuals. While it cannot be denied that there were lecturers and intellectuals who supported the students' struggle, their numbers were smalI. The majority of intellectuals were silent and were usually unwilling to be vocal. Because of this lack of involvement by the inteIlectual community, the student movement was unable to analyse issues with sufficient depth.

Conclusion

The extent of the contribution of the student movement to society at large is a difficult question.

Despite this, the importance of a strong student movement must be recognised, especially in a young country like ours, where a large proportion of the people are poorly-educated and poor, and where political consciousness is rather confused.

We cannot deny that Malaysian students have a social responsibility. At the zenith of their strength, they emerged as champions of the people.

The present curbs on the student movement also stand in the way of the development of an independent, progressive intelligentsia in our country which can contribute to solving some of our fundamental problems. 

Source:-  http://idealis-mahasiswa.tripod.com/artikel-harian/jan2002/11jan02.html


Note:- More University students today...but alas, what has happened to them? Can the poor, marginalised and victims of injustice still be able to rely on Malaysian students to champion their cause for justice?



 
Viewing all 2617 articles
Browse latest View live