The Abolish ISA Movement (Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA, GMI) strongly refutes the statement by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Tan Sri Bernard Dompok, who said that there has been no detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) since Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over as Prime Minister in 2003 (The Star, 22nd October 2007).
The statement by the Minister is a blatant lie. Since Abdullah Ahmad Badawi assumed office of the Prime Minister in October 2003, the ISA has continuously been used.
The statistics of arrests and renewal of detention orders under the ISA during Abdullah Badawi’s premiership thus far are as follows:
Year
New Arrests
Renewed Detention Orders
Total in Kamunting
2004
12
25
101
2005
16
30
107
2006
20
18
90
2007 (as of October)
9
Statistics not available
90
(GMI Monitoring)
In this year alone, four individuals were arrested for allegedly spreading rumors of racial riots in Johor Bahru recently. Another five were arrested for alleged involvement in Jemaah Islamiah - Mohd Faizul Bin Haji Samsudin, Mohd Amir Bin Mohd Hanafiah, Ahmad Kamil Bin Mohd Hanafiah, Zulkifli Bin Abu Bakar and Mohd Noor bin Abu Bakar.
The Minister’s statement is especially factually wrong when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as the Internal Security Minister has personally signed the 2-year renewal detention orders of 73 ISA detainees since he came into power.
Many of these detainees are now having their detention without trial entering into the fifth or sixth years in Kamunting detention camp.GMI is also shocked and regrets that the Minister said that “Until today we have no opportunity to discuss this particular matter and we do want to know more about it.”
Since 2001, GMI, a coalition of 83 NGOs and community groups, have been actively campaigning against the ISA. Numerous reports and memoranda have been handed over to Suhakam, the PM’s office and the Internal Affairs Ministry to abolish the ISA.
GMI also wishes to highlight that besides press statements, at least more than three memoranda have been sent to the Prime Minister and his Ministry, the Internal Security Ministry during the past 3 years - none of which has been replied.
It is highly regrettable that now, with the judgment of Malek Hussein, the minister has misled the public by trying to project an image that the government of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is less abusive with the cruel and draconian ISA.
GMI would like to point out to the Minister and Prime Minister that, as of today, there are no less than 90 ISA detainees continue to languish in the Kamunting Detention Camp.GMI would like to remind the Minister that the ISA is not only unfair and unjust to the detainees, but has also become one of the main root-causes of corruption, abuse of power and police brutality.
The lack of transparency and accountability and the secrecy of the use of the ISA provide a more than perfect environment for corruption, abuse of power and torture by the police as in evident and confirmed in the judgment of Malek Hussin’s civil suit case recently.
GMI strongly urges the Government to respect the right to trial for those who have been detained under the ISA in Malaysia. “Emergency” laws in Malaysia disregard human rights and violate the safeguards contained in the Federal Constitution and international human rights law.
Therefore, GMI calls for the following:The Minister and the Government to retract the previous statement or comments and make a public apology, especially to the ISA detainees and the families.
Abolish the ISA and all forms of detention without trial; charge all detainees in an open court or else release them immediately and unconditionally. Heed the call of SUHAKAM, the independent body which safeguards human rights in Malaysia, to review and abolish ISA.
Numerous international human rights bodies have also voiced the same for many years.A
bolish ISA!
Release All ISA Detainees!
Close Down Kamunting Detention Camp!
Yours sincerely,
Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh
Chairman GMI
http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/letters.php?blogid=5&archive=2007-10
Monday, October 29, 2007
Star : 2 cops deny doctoring witness’ statement in probe
Saturday October 27, 2007
Two cops deny doctoring witness’ statement in probe
JOHOR BARU: Two policemen claimed trial to doctoring a witness’ statement in investigations involving Johor businessman Goh Cheng Poh at the Sessions Court here.
Deputy Supt Baharin Mohd Rose, 52, an officer with the Internal Security and Public Order division, and Sjn Mejar Hasan Aman, 49, were charged with falsifying the statement of witness 34-year-old Chong Wah.
If convicted, they can be sentenced up to two years’ jail or face a fine or both.
They allegedly committed the offence at Pulai Springs Resort Berhad, Pulai, at 11am on June 5.
DSP Baharin also claimed trial to using the forged witness statement of Chong at the Internal Security Ministry in Putrajaya on July 2.
Anti-Corruption Agency Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohamad Jazamudin Ahmad Nawawi proposed that bail be set at RM10,000 for each accused.
Sessions judge Zanol Rashid Hussain allowed RM8,000 bail for each and fixed hearing for Feb 13 and Feb 14 of next year.
Abdul Halim Yahya and former Terengganu Deputy CPO Datuk Kamaruddin Mat Desa represented both the accused.
Recently, there has been a string of cases involving policemen being investigated for corruption.
On Thursday, at the Malacca Sessions Court, Sjn Mejar Hasan along with Asst Supt Hong Keng Hock, 42, of the Commercial Crime Department in Bukit Aman, also claimed trial to using forged statements of witnesses Siew Kok Seng, 55, and Chua Sia Heng, 40, in investigations involving the same businessman.
On Wednesday, ASP Hong was charged in Kuala Lumpur with two counts of using the forged statements of Siew and Chua at the Commercial Crime Investigation Department’s operation/technical assistance division in Bukit Aman.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/10/27/courts/19294862&sec=courts
Two cops deny doctoring witness’ statement in probe
JOHOR BARU: Two policemen claimed trial to doctoring a witness’ statement in investigations involving Johor businessman Goh Cheng Poh at the Sessions Court here.
Deputy Supt Baharin Mohd Rose, 52, an officer with the Internal Security and Public Order division, and Sjn Mejar Hasan Aman, 49, were charged with falsifying the statement of witness 34-year-old Chong Wah.
If convicted, they can be sentenced up to two years’ jail or face a fine or both.
They allegedly committed the offence at Pulai Springs Resort Berhad, Pulai, at 11am on June 5.
DSP Baharin also claimed trial to using the forged witness statement of Chong at the Internal Security Ministry in Putrajaya on July 2.
Anti-Corruption Agency Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohamad Jazamudin Ahmad Nawawi proposed that bail be set at RM10,000 for each accused.
Sessions judge Zanol Rashid Hussain allowed RM8,000 bail for each and fixed hearing for Feb 13 and Feb 14 of next year.
Abdul Halim Yahya and former Terengganu Deputy CPO Datuk Kamaruddin Mat Desa represented both the accused.
Recently, there has been a string of cases involving policemen being investigated for corruption.
On Thursday, at the Malacca Sessions Court, Sjn Mejar Hasan along with Asst Supt Hong Keng Hock, 42, of the Commercial Crime Department in Bukit Aman, also claimed trial to using forged statements of witnesses Siew Kok Seng, 55, and Chua Sia Heng, 40, in investigations involving the same businessman.
On Wednesday, ASP Hong was charged in Kuala Lumpur with two counts of using the forged statements of Siew and Chua at the Commercial Crime Investigation Department’s operation/technical assistance division in Bukit Aman.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/10/27/courts/19294862&sec=courts
Ahmad Fairuz the most incompetent CJ
From limkitsiang.com :
I referred to the Malaysian Bar website listing the reported judgments written by Ahmad Fairuz as compared to his three predecessors, Tun Salleh Abas, Raja Azlan Shah and Tun Mohamad Suffian which placed the current Chief Justice in very poor light for being the most “unproductive” of the four.
The comparative figures for Ahmad Fairuz, Salleh Abas, Raja Azlan and Mohd Suffian for written judgments are as follows:
I referred to the Malaysian Bar website listing the reported judgments written by Ahmad Fairuz as compared to his three predecessors, Tun Salleh Abas, Raja Azlan Shah and Tun Mohamad Suffian which placed the current Chief Justice in very poor light for being the most “unproductive” of the four.
The comparative figures for Ahmad Fairuz, Salleh Abas, Raja Azlan and Mohd Suffian for written judgments are as follows:
*Table courtesy of Bar Council.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Kami Penan perlu tanah dan hutan
"Kami bukan pakai lesen, kami hanya pakai adat kami yang sudah ada sebelum syarikat dan sebelum lesen. "
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/73752
Kami Penan perlu tanah dan hutan
Matu Tugang & Along JooOct 19, 07 7:47pm
Kami gembira mendengar syarikat Shin Yang berkata yang dia sangat mengambil berat tentang keperluan hidup dan hak adat kami kaum Penan (Logging firm: We're doing our best to help Penans). Tetapi kami tidak mengerti kenapa keadaan sebenarnya, jauh berbeza dengan apa yang dicakapkan oleh Shin Yang.
Terlebih dahulu, apa yang benar, kami memang mengaku benar. Memang Shin Yang ada membantu kami dengan belanja orang mati, tetapi tidak pernah sekali dengan pengangkutan membawa mayat pulang atau menghantar mayat ke kubur.
Begitu juga, Shin Yang ada membayar elaun kepada ketua kampung dan ahli JKKK (jawatankuasa kemajuan dan keselamatan kampung), tetapi syarikat ini tidak membayarnya kepada semua ketua kampung dan JKKK dalam kawasan lesennya.
Kami juga mengaku bahawa Shin Yang seperti dengan syarikat lain ada memberi buah tangan untuk kami merayakan Krismas. Tetapi, tidak seperti yang dikata oleh wakilnya, tidak ada buah tangan dalam bentuk wang dan dalam bentuk barang.
Kami diberi RM300 untuk satu rumah panjang yang seramai 40 keluarga dan kami boleh terima dalam bentuk wang atau bentuk barang. Selain ini, kata kata lain wakil Shin Yang jauh daripada benar, dan kami ingin membalas cakap mereka satu demi satu, dari perkara kecil hingga perkara besar.
Yang pertama, sebalik daripada membayar pemali, wakil Shin Yang sudah kata kepada kami bahawa pemali itu sudahpun selesai pada waktu syarikat balak mula masuk ke kawasan kami Penan dulu, dan dia tidak perlu lagi membayar pemali untuk kerja ladang sawit dan kayu kertas.
Yang benar, Shin Yang sawit ada memberi pemali kepada kampung Penan Lg Jaik, tetapi tidak kepada yang lain. Yang kedua, kami Penan di Seping, Plieran dan Danum berani berkata bahawa Shin Yang yang paling tidak membantu kami dengan pengangkutan ke Sg Asap, sama ada untuk menghantar anak ke sekolah atau membawa orang sakit ke klinik.
Sebaliknya, kami selalu dimarah dan dihina apabila kami cuba memohon bantuan ini daripada Shin Yang tidak kira Shin Yang Plantation atau Shin Yang Forestry.
Yang ketiga, kami Penan Seping, Plieran dan Danum juga berani berkata bahawa Shin Yang yang paling tidak membantu kita dengan keperluan perumahan.
Hanya pada tahun 2007 ini, baru Shin Yang ada membuat satu rumah panjang untuk Penan Lg Pelutan. Itupun bukan sebagai menolong, tetapi sebagai mengganti pulau hutan Penan Lg Pelutan, iaitu mereka menyerah hutan tersebut kepada Shin Yang untuk mengambil kayu balak dan membuat ladang kayu kertas.
Begitu juga dengan air paip di mana Penan Lg Jaik telah mendapat bekalannya dari medical (pihak perubatan). Kami Penan Lg Singu, Lg Luar dan Lg Tangau tidak ada air paip dan terpaksa menggunakan air hujan untuk masak dan minum dan air sungai yang kotor untuk mandi dan mencuci kain.
Keempat, kami berani mencabar Shin Yang supaya menunjukkan buku bukunya sebagai bukti bahawa 90 peratus pekerja di ladang sawit adalah orang Penan.
Kami Penan tidak bersekolah, tetapi kami ada mata dan kami sendiri dapat nampak majoriti pekerja (ladang) sawit adalah orang Indonesia atau bangsa lain daripada Penan.
Kelima, dan yang paling penting, kami menolak sama sekali cakap wakil Shin Yang bahawa mereka menghormati hak dan tanah adat kami. Sebaliknya, syarikat ini meninjak hak kami.
Bila Shin Yang Plantation mula masuk ke kawasan kami, wakilnya berkata kepada kami bahawa mereka memegang lesen bagi semua kawasan ini dan kami Penan tiada hak ke atas kawasan ini, selain tanah temuda dan kubur.
Mereka ada berkata bahawa kami tidak boleh menyimpan tanah atau hutan untuk kegunaan kami. Tambahnya lagi, Shin Yang Plantation bukan datang berrunding dengan kami dulu. Dia membuat sesuka hatinya, mengambil tanah temuda kami, lalu mahu membayar RM300 untuk satu hektar tanah temuda yang sudah mereka habis tolak.
Kami Penan tidak setuju and tidak mahu, tetapi apa boleh buat, tanah itu pun sudah mereka gundur dan tanam sawit atau kayu kertas. Jadi, terpaksalah kami terima RM300 untuk setiap satu hektar.
Kami Penan Seping, Plieran dan Danum ini memang takut dengan mereka dan takut dengan perintah. Lalu, walaupun kami amat sakit hati dan susah hati, kami tidak tahu buat apa apa.
Seorang daripada ketua kampung kami, iaitu Matu Tugang dari Lg Jaik, ada pergi berjumpa DO (district officer) Belaga dengan GM (general manager) Shin Yang. Sebelum itu, DO Belaga waktu itu ada memberitahu TR (Tui Rumah) Matu bahawa memang Penan perlu tanah dan hutan.
Tetapi, ketika berdepan dengan GM Shin Yang, DO Belaga kata apa yang boleh dia atur, dia akan atur. Lalu, diberitahu GM supaya jangan kacau pulau paip. Tetapi pasal tanah, dia memberitahu TR Matu supaya tunggu GM atur bagi tanah sama Penan kerana kami Penan tidak ada kuasa.
Apabila TR Matu dengar kata DO, dia pun diam diri kerana takut dengan perintah dan takut salah cakap, bukan kerana dia terima kata kata itu. Sudah beratus tahun kami Penan duduk di kawasan ini. Bagaimana pula kami Penan tidak ada kuasa dan tidak ada hak?
Kami bukan pakai lesen, kami hanya pakai adat kami yang sudah ada sebelum syarikat dan sebelum lesen.
Jadi, TR Matu pun bertanya dengan kawan kerana dia fikir cakap DO itu tidak patut. Kawan itu menasihatkan TR Matu supaya bertanya kepada orang yang lebih tahu tentang hak adat, tetapi dia juga fikir tidak patut rumah panjang tidak ada kuasa atas tanah mereka.
Dia memberi alamat Suhakam (Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia) kepada TR Matu dan dengan cara itu TR Matu dapat menyampaikan aduannya kepada Suhakam. Ikut cakap Suhakam, kami Penan tidak dapat tahan semua kawasan, mahu ada bagi kepada syarikat dan juga ada bagi untuk kami.
Kalau begitu, kami Penan Seping, Plieran dan Danum dapat terima. Tetapi, sekarang GM kata TR Matu mahu tahan terlalu banyak tanah. Sekian lama kami Penan menjaga hutan di kawasan ini.
Sekarang, dalam masa beberapa tahun sahaja, Shin Yang sudah tebang habis hutan itu, tinggal hanya sedikit di atas bukit dan dalam kawasan yang kami tahan. Bagi kami Penan, kawasan kami bukan setakat perkara penghidup kami tetapi juga penuh dengan kenangan pahit manis kami.
Sekarang, tempat itu semuanya sudah hancur musnah. Tambahan pula, penghidup kami pun syarikat mahu ambil. Kami Penan perlu tanah dan perlu hutan.
Kawasan yang kami cuba tahan sekarang tidak luas berbanding dengan berpuluh ribu hektar (kawasan) lesen Shin Yang.
Yang kami cuba tahan hanya sedikit hutan, tidak cukup pun untuk babi lalu, dan sedikit tanah untuk tanam padi. Itu hanya yang tinggal untuk kami dan keturunan kami.
Kalau sedikit itu pun tidak dapat, baik bunuh kami Penan sekarang daripada bunuh kami perlahan lahan.
Nota: Matu Tugang adalah Tuai Rumah Lg Jaik dan Along Joo adalah Tuai Rumah Lg Singu.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/73752
Kami Penan perlu tanah dan hutan
Matu Tugang & Along JooOct 19, 07 7:47pm
Kami gembira mendengar syarikat Shin Yang berkata yang dia sangat mengambil berat tentang keperluan hidup dan hak adat kami kaum Penan (Logging firm: We're doing our best to help Penans). Tetapi kami tidak mengerti kenapa keadaan sebenarnya, jauh berbeza dengan apa yang dicakapkan oleh Shin Yang.
Terlebih dahulu, apa yang benar, kami memang mengaku benar. Memang Shin Yang ada membantu kami dengan belanja orang mati, tetapi tidak pernah sekali dengan pengangkutan membawa mayat pulang atau menghantar mayat ke kubur.
Begitu juga, Shin Yang ada membayar elaun kepada ketua kampung dan ahli JKKK (jawatankuasa kemajuan dan keselamatan kampung), tetapi syarikat ini tidak membayarnya kepada semua ketua kampung dan JKKK dalam kawasan lesennya.
Kami juga mengaku bahawa Shin Yang seperti dengan syarikat lain ada memberi buah tangan untuk kami merayakan Krismas. Tetapi, tidak seperti yang dikata oleh wakilnya, tidak ada buah tangan dalam bentuk wang dan dalam bentuk barang.
Kami diberi RM300 untuk satu rumah panjang yang seramai 40 keluarga dan kami boleh terima dalam bentuk wang atau bentuk barang. Selain ini, kata kata lain wakil Shin Yang jauh daripada benar, dan kami ingin membalas cakap mereka satu demi satu, dari perkara kecil hingga perkara besar.
Yang pertama, sebalik daripada membayar pemali, wakil Shin Yang sudah kata kepada kami bahawa pemali itu sudahpun selesai pada waktu syarikat balak mula masuk ke kawasan kami Penan dulu, dan dia tidak perlu lagi membayar pemali untuk kerja ladang sawit dan kayu kertas.
Yang benar, Shin Yang sawit ada memberi pemali kepada kampung Penan Lg Jaik, tetapi tidak kepada yang lain. Yang kedua, kami Penan di Seping, Plieran dan Danum berani berkata bahawa Shin Yang yang paling tidak membantu kami dengan pengangkutan ke Sg Asap, sama ada untuk menghantar anak ke sekolah atau membawa orang sakit ke klinik.
Sebaliknya, kami selalu dimarah dan dihina apabila kami cuba memohon bantuan ini daripada Shin Yang tidak kira Shin Yang Plantation atau Shin Yang Forestry.
Yang ketiga, kami Penan Seping, Plieran dan Danum juga berani berkata bahawa Shin Yang yang paling tidak membantu kita dengan keperluan perumahan.
Hanya pada tahun 2007 ini, baru Shin Yang ada membuat satu rumah panjang untuk Penan Lg Pelutan. Itupun bukan sebagai menolong, tetapi sebagai mengganti pulau hutan Penan Lg Pelutan, iaitu mereka menyerah hutan tersebut kepada Shin Yang untuk mengambil kayu balak dan membuat ladang kayu kertas.
Begitu juga dengan air paip di mana Penan Lg Jaik telah mendapat bekalannya dari medical (pihak perubatan). Kami Penan Lg Singu, Lg Luar dan Lg Tangau tidak ada air paip dan terpaksa menggunakan air hujan untuk masak dan minum dan air sungai yang kotor untuk mandi dan mencuci kain.
Keempat, kami berani mencabar Shin Yang supaya menunjukkan buku bukunya sebagai bukti bahawa 90 peratus pekerja di ladang sawit adalah orang Penan.
Kami Penan tidak bersekolah, tetapi kami ada mata dan kami sendiri dapat nampak majoriti pekerja (ladang) sawit adalah orang Indonesia atau bangsa lain daripada Penan.
Kelima, dan yang paling penting, kami menolak sama sekali cakap wakil Shin Yang bahawa mereka menghormati hak dan tanah adat kami. Sebaliknya, syarikat ini meninjak hak kami.
Bila Shin Yang Plantation mula masuk ke kawasan kami, wakilnya berkata kepada kami bahawa mereka memegang lesen bagi semua kawasan ini dan kami Penan tiada hak ke atas kawasan ini, selain tanah temuda dan kubur.
Mereka ada berkata bahawa kami tidak boleh menyimpan tanah atau hutan untuk kegunaan kami. Tambahnya lagi, Shin Yang Plantation bukan datang berrunding dengan kami dulu. Dia membuat sesuka hatinya, mengambil tanah temuda kami, lalu mahu membayar RM300 untuk satu hektar tanah temuda yang sudah mereka habis tolak.
Kami Penan tidak setuju and tidak mahu, tetapi apa boleh buat, tanah itu pun sudah mereka gundur dan tanam sawit atau kayu kertas. Jadi, terpaksalah kami terima RM300 untuk setiap satu hektar.
Kami Penan Seping, Plieran dan Danum ini memang takut dengan mereka dan takut dengan perintah. Lalu, walaupun kami amat sakit hati dan susah hati, kami tidak tahu buat apa apa.
Seorang daripada ketua kampung kami, iaitu Matu Tugang dari Lg Jaik, ada pergi berjumpa DO (district officer) Belaga dengan GM (general manager) Shin Yang. Sebelum itu, DO Belaga waktu itu ada memberitahu TR (Tui Rumah) Matu bahawa memang Penan perlu tanah dan hutan.
Tetapi, ketika berdepan dengan GM Shin Yang, DO Belaga kata apa yang boleh dia atur, dia akan atur. Lalu, diberitahu GM supaya jangan kacau pulau paip. Tetapi pasal tanah, dia memberitahu TR Matu supaya tunggu GM atur bagi tanah sama Penan kerana kami Penan tidak ada kuasa.
Apabila TR Matu dengar kata DO, dia pun diam diri kerana takut dengan perintah dan takut salah cakap, bukan kerana dia terima kata kata itu. Sudah beratus tahun kami Penan duduk di kawasan ini. Bagaimana pula kami Penan tidak ada kuasa dan tidak ada hak?
Kami bukan pakai lesen, kami hanya pakai adat kami yang sudah ada sebelum syarikat dan sebelum lesen.
Jadi, TR Matu pun bertanya dengan kawan kerana dia fikir cakap DO itu tidak patut. Kawan itu menasihatkan TR Matu supaya bertanya kepada orang yang lebih tahu tentang hak adat, tetapi dia juga fikir tidak patut rumah panjang tidak ada kuasa atas tanah mereka.
Dia memberi alamat Suhakam (Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia) kepada TR Matu dan dengan cara itu TR Matu dapat menyampaikan aduannya kepada Suhakam. Ikut cakap Suhakam, kami Penan tidak dapat tahan semua kawasan, mahu ada bagi kepada syarikat dan juga ada bagi untuk kami.
Kalau begitu, kami Penan Seping, Plieran dan Danum dapat terima. Tetapi, sekarang GM kata TR Matu mahu tahan terlalu banyak tanah. Sekian lama kami Penan menjaga hutan di kawasan ini.
Sekarang, dalam masa beberapa tahun sahaja, Shin Yang sudah tebang habis hutan itu, tinggal hanya sedikit di atas bukit dan dalam kawasan yang kami tahan. Bagi kami Penan, kawasan kami bukan setakat perkara penghidup kami tetapi juga penuh dengan kenangan pahit manis kami.
Sekarang, tempat itu semuanya sudah hancur musnah. Tambahan pula, penghidup kami pun syarikat mahu ambil. Kami Penan perlu tanah dan perlu hutan.
Kawasan yang kami cuba tahan sekarang tidak luas berbanding dengan berpuluh ribu hektar (kawasan) lesen Shin Yang.
Yang kami cuba tahan hanya sedikit hutan, tidak cukup pun untuk babi lalu, dan sedikit tanah untuk tanam padi. Itu hanya yang tinggal untuk kami dan keturunan kami.
Kalau sedikit itu pun tidak dapat, baik bunuh kami Penan sekarang daripada bunuh kami perlahan lahan.
Nota: Matu Tugang adalah Tuai Rumah Lg Jaik dan Along Joo adalah Tuai Rumah Lg Singu.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Aliran : Chief Justice must go – and go now
Aliran media statementhttp://www.aliran.com
Chief Justice must go – and go now
Wednesday, 17 October 2007
It would upset and disappoint Malaysians terribly if the tenure of the current Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, were to be extended. It would seriously undermine the confidence of the people in the judiciary to a point of no return.
The judiciary is already in a shambles and there is no need to degrade it further by extending the tenure of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court.
On behalf of all Malaysians, Aliran would like to politely and humbly appeal to His Majesty, the Yang diPertuan Agong, to reject Ahmad Fairuz’s application to His Majesty for a six-month extension of tenure. Article 125(1) states: Subject to the provisions of Clauses (2) to (5), a judge of the Federal Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-six years or such later time, not being later than six months after he attains that age, as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may approve.
In this extension of tenure of office, the Prime Minister does not seem to have any role to play. It would appear that His Majesty, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, solely decides on this matter. It is the absolute discretion of His Majesty, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
By now it is very clear that it is the collective view of all thinking Malaysians that Ahmad Fairuz does not deserve to be in office even a minute longer. He must go - and go in the soonest time frame that is possible. After the disgraceful Lingam tape, it is only morally correct that he should not be around to denigrate an institution that is the custodian of justice. It is as simple as that.
Ahmad Fairuz has not openly and publicly denied that he is the person on the other end of the telephone conversation. He has not said any thing to dispel all the rumours that link him to various episodes in the promotion and elevation of judges. Neither is he spared from the negative and speculative judgments that he has been associated with. How could such a person who has miserably failed to put the record straight be considered for an extension of tenure of office?
We are not persuaded by Datuk Seri Nazri’s claim, according to the NST of today, that “the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has to act on the advice of the prime minister on extending the tenure of the chief justice”, who is due to retire at the end of the month. He further reiterates that the “king as a constitutional monarch was bound by the prime minister’s advice in the appointment and promotion of judicial officers. This includes whether to extend by six months the tenure of the chief justice after he attains the compulsory retirement age of 66”.
Nazri seems to conveniently forget that in the appointment and promotion of judicial officers, His Majesty is required to act “after consulting the Conference of Rulers”. “After consulting the Conference of Rulers” does not seem to suggest that it is purely an academic exercise. It is more than that. There has to be deliberation to arrive at a collective decision – no matter what Nazri may insist. There are others in the legal circle who do not share Nazri’s interpretation of the Federal Constitution.
We are not persuaded by Datuk Seri Nazri’s claim, according to the NST of today, that “the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has to act on the advice of the prime minister on extending the tenure of the chief justice”, who is due to retire at the end of the month. He further reiterates that the “king as a constitutional monarch was bound by the prime minister’s advice in the appointment and promotion of judicial officers. This includes whether to extend by six months the tenure of the chief justice after he attains the compulsory retirement age of 66”
Nazri seems to conveniently forget that in the appointment and promotion of judicial officers, His Majesty is required to act “after consulting the Conference of Rulers”. “After consulting the Conference of Rulers” does not seem to suggest that it is purely an academic exercise. It is more than that. There has to be deliberation to arrive at a collective decision – no matter what Nazri may insist. There are others in the legal circle who do not share Nazri’s interpretation of the Federal Constitution.
Under the Federal Constitution, when it comes to “tendering his advice as to the appointment of a judge”, the Prime Minister does not simply pluck out a name for consideration out of thin air. He “shall consult” the respective heads of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court before submitting the names to His Majesty, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Just as in this case, “shall consult” does not mean a meaningless chat with the respective heads but refers to a constructive discussion and recommendation; this same process applies when His Majesty consults the Conference of Rulers
Aliran would like to advise Nazri not to confuse the public with his one-sided interpretation of the Federal Constitution
P Ramakrishnan
President
17 October 2007
Chief Justice must go – and go now
Wednesday, 17 October 2007
It would upset and disappoint Malaysians terribly if the tenure of the current Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, were to be extended. It would seriously undermine the confidence of the people in the judiciary to a point of no return.
The judiciary is already in a shambles and there is no need to degrade it further by extending the tenure of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court.
On behalf of all Malaysians, Aliran would like to politely and humbly appeal to His Majesty, the Yang diPertuan Agong, to reject Ahmad Fairuz’s application to His Majesty for a six-month extension of tenure. Article 125(1) states: Subject to the provisions of Clauses (2) to (5), a judge of the Federal Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-six years or such later time, not being later than six months after he attains that age, as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may approve.
In this extension of tenure of office, the Prime Minister does not seem to have any role to play. It would appear that His Majesty, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, solely decides on this matter. It is the absolute discretion of His Majesty, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
By now it is very clear that it is the collective view of all thinking Malaysians that Ahmad Fairuz does not deserve to be in office even a minute longer. He must go - and go in the soonest time frame that is possible. After the disgraceful Lingam tape, it is only morally correct that he should not be around to denigrate an institution that is the custodian of justice. It is as simple as that.
Ahmad Fairuz has not openly and publicly denied that he is the person on the other end of the telephone conversation. He has not said any thing to dispel all the rumours that link him to various episodes in the promotion and elevation of judges. Neither is he spared from the negative and speculative judgments that he has been associated with. How could such a person who has miserably failed to put the record straight be considered for an extension of tenure of office?
We are not persuaded by Datuk Seri Nazri’s claim, according to the NST of today, that “the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has to act on the advice of the prime minister on extending the tenure of the chief justice”, who is due to retire at the end of the month. He further reiterates that the “king as a constitutional monarch was bound by the prime minister’s advice in the appointment and promotion of judicial officers. This includes whether to extend by six months the tenure of the chief justice after he attains the compulsory retirement age of 66”.
Nazri seems to conveniently forget that in the appointment and promotion of judicial officers, His Majesty is required to act “after consulting the Conference of Rulers”. “After consulting the Conference of Rulers” does not seem to suggest that it is purely an academic exercise. It is more than that. There has to be deliberation to arrive at a collective decision – no matter what Nazri may insist. There are others in the legal circle who do not share Nazri’s interpretation of the Federal Constitution.
We are not persuaded by Datuk Seri Nazri’s claim, according to the NST of today, that “the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has to act on the advice of the prime minister on extending the tenure of the chief justice”, who is due to retire at the end of the month. He further reiterates that the “king as a constitutional monarch was bound by the prime minister’s advice in the appointment and promotion of judicial officers. This includes whether to extend by six months the tenure of the chief justice after he attains the compulsory retirement age of 66”
Nazri seems to conveniently forget that in the appointment and promotion of judicial officers, His Majesty is required to act “after consulting the Conference of Rulers”. “After consulting the Conference of Rulers” does not seem to suggest that it is purely an academic exercise. It is more than that. There has to be deliberation to arrive at a collective decision – no matter what Nazri may insist. There are others in the legal circle who do not share Nazri’s interpretation of the Federal Constitution.
Under the Federal Constitution, when it comes to “tendering his advice as to the appointment of a judge”, the Prime Minister does not simply pluck out a name for consideration out of thin air. He “shall consult” the respective heads of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court before submitting the names to His Majesty, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Just as in this case, “shall consult” does not mean a meaningless chat with the respective heads but refers to a constructive discussion and recommendation; this same process applies when His Majesty consults the Conference of Rulers
Aliran would like to advise Nazri not to confuse the public with his one-sided interpretation of the Federal Constitution
P Ramakrishnan
President
17 October 2007
Suaram : Death in Police Custody: Ulaganathan a/l Muniandy
http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/letters.php?itemid=9355
23/10: Death in Police Custody: Ulaganathan a/l Muniandy
Category: General
Posted by: Raja Petra
Inquest death of a 19 year old boyIn reference to above matter, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) would like to inform you that an inquest into death in police custody case of Ulaganathan a/l Muniandy will be held after a delay of 4 years.
Ulaganathan Muniandy (19year old) an Emergency Ordinance detainee was detained at Kajang Police Station since 15 May 2003 and had died suddenly in 21 July 2003 at Kajang Hospital.
According to the Kajang hospital the cause of death "cannot be determined" while the family suspect foul-play.When the family finally with the help of SUARAM and Bar Council wanted to do a civil suit, now the Attorney general have finally requested for an Inquest being carried out - 4 years after the death.
The details of the inquest as below:
Date: 24 October 2007 (Wednesday)
Time: 8.30am
Venue: Magistrate Court Kajang (Bersidang Di Putrajaya) Aras 1 & 2, Zon Selatan (Bangunan Annexe)Palace Of Justice, Presint 3, 62506 Putrajaya
Death in Police custody is a fundamental human rights violation and goes against the rights to life. We very much hope that your press organization will cover the above event.For inquiries, please call SUARAM or Moon Hui (012-7209981). Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Moon Hui
Coordinator
23/10: Death in Police Custody: Ulaganathan a/l Muniandy
Category: General
Posted by: Raja Petra
Inquest death of a 19 year old boyIn reference to above matter, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) would like to inform you that an inquest into death in police custody case of Ulaganathan a/l Muniandy will be held after a delay of 4 years.
Ulaganathan Muniandy (19year old) an Emergency Ordinance detainee was detained at Kajang Police Station since 15 May 2003 and had died suddenly in 21 July 2003 at Kajang Hospital.
According to the Kajang hospital the cause of death "cannot be determined" while the family suspect foul-play.When the family finally with the help of SUARAM and Bar Council wanted to do a civil suit, now the Attorney general have finally requested for an Inquest being carried out - 4 years after the death.
The details of the inquest as below:
Date: 24 October 2007 (Wednesday)
Time: 8.30am
Venue: Magistrate Court Kajang (Bersidang Di Putrajaya) Aras 1 & 2, Zon Selatan (Bangunan Annexe)Palace Of Justice, Presint 3, 62506 Putrajaya
Death in Police custody is a fundamental human rights violation and goes against the rights to life. We very much hope that your press organization will cover the above event.For inquiries, please call SUARAM or Moon Hui (012-7209981). Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Moon Hui
Coordinator
Saturday, October 20, 2007
首相应告别压制人权黑暗期，废除恶法推动警察改革
吉隆坡暨雪兰莪中华大会堂民权委员会欣慰法庭宣判内安法令扣留者阿都马列胡先起诉政府非法扣留和暴力虐待胜诉。这是迟来的正义，证实了长期以来内安法扣留者遭暴力虐待的事实。然而，这项残酷的事实只是执法者暴力行径的冰山一角，更值得责问的是，何以政府竟然容忍如此不人道的举措维持多年。
今年10月27日是茅草行动二十周年纪念。过去这项大规模逮捕异议分子行动，是本国自 513以来最大的压制人权黑暗事件，连同1988年司法危机以及最高法院法官革职事件， 令民主制度破坏殆尽，其压制性效应一直延续到今天。
当年政府援引《1960年内安法令》扣留106名政党人士和社运工作者，却始终未能提出他们危害国家安全的证据加以提控。同样的，扣留者也投诉遭执法者暴力威胁，种种压制侵害人权，剥夺人性尊严。
面对种种的非法扣留以及执法者如此卑鄙无耻的暴力行径，政府应该立即向过去所有非法扣留和暴力虐待的受害者致歉，同时废除《1960年内安法令》，以根绝这种非人性的制度化暴力，以免执法者继续藉以侵犯人权。该法是我国最大的不公正，赋予部长过大的权力批准无审讯扣留，导致严重侵犯宪赋人权。这项恶法导致部长权限凌驾司法，行政权力恶性膨胀，恶法成为执政者对付异议分子的政治工具。
首相阿都拉誓言推动行政革新与听取真话，就应该接纳人权团体多年的呼吁，立即宣誓与过去压制人权的黑暗期划清界线，切实推动废除恶法，彻除腐败滥权。首要就是成立"真相调查委员会"彻查 1987年茅草行动真相，还原历史真相、恢复正义以及补偿受害者。
阿都马列胡先案子捎来远违的正义呼声，该案子不应仅以金钱赔偿结束，而让滥权、暴虐的涉案高级警官逍遥法外，应该重新开启当年有关高级警官施暴的调查报告，并将施暴者绳之以法，也追究时任总警长拉欣诺的行政责任。
种种警察滥权与暴力事例也证明政府推展警察改革的必要，首要就是落实皇家委员会建议 设立的"独立警察违例行为投诉委员会"（ Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission，IPCMC），以及限制政治部的权力。
首相阿都拉上台允诺听真话推动革新，但并未实际纠正和废止过去压制性的举措与体制，相反的，近年新闻自由严重受压制，贪污腐败日益严重，民生困难，大道路费以及百物价格上涨，令人民怨声载道。首相不应再漠视民瘼，而应大刀阔斧推展改革，肃清腐败，才能令国家走向民主开放、和平繁荣的道路。
民权委员会主席谢春荣 谨启
今年10月27日是茅草行动二十周年纪念。过去这项大规模逮捕异议分子行动，是本国自 513以来最大的压制人权黑暗事件，连同1988年司法危机以及最高法院法官革职事件， 令民主制度破坏殆尽，其压制性效应一直延续到今天。
当年政府援引《1960年内安法令》扣留106名政党人士和社运工作者，却始终未能提出他们危害国家安全的证据加以提控。同样的，扣留者也投诉遭执法者暴力威胁，种种压制侵害人权，剥夺人性尊严。
面对种种的非法扣留以及执法者如此卑鄙无耻的暴力行径，政府应该立即向过去所有非法扣留和暴力虐待的受害者致歉，同时废除《1960年内安法令》，以根绝这种非人性的制度化暴力，以免执法者继续藉以侵犯人权。该法是我国最大的不公正，赋予部长过大的权力批准无审讯扣留，导致严重侵犯宪赋人权。这项恶法导致部长权限凌驾司法，行政权力恶性膨胀，恶法成为执政者对付异议分子的政治工具。
首相阿都拉誓言推动行政革新与听取真话，就应该接纳人权团体多年的呼吁，立即宣誓与过去压制人权的黑暗期划清界线，切实推动废除恶法，彻除腐败滥权。首要就是成立"真相调查委员会"彻查 1987年茅草行动真相，还原历史真相、恢复正义以及补偿受害者。
阿都马列胡先案子捎来远违的正义呼声，该案子不应仅以金钱赔偿结束，而让滥权、暴虐的涉案高级警官逍遥法外，应该重新开启当年有关高级警官施暴的调查报告，并将施暴者绳之以法，也追究时任总警长拉欣诺的行政责任。
种种警察滥权与暴力事例也证明政府推展警察改革的必要，首要就是落实皇家委员会建议 设立的"独立警察违例行为投诉委员会"（ Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission，IPCMC），以及限制政治部的权力。
首相阿都拉上台允诺听真话推动革新，但并未实际纠正和废止过去压制性的举措与体制，相反的，近年新闻自由严重受压制，贪污腐败日益严重，民生困难，大道路费以及百物价格上涨，令人民怨声载道。首相不应再漠视民瘼，而应大刀阔斧推展改革，肃清腐败，才能令国家走向民主开放、和平繁荣的道路。
民权委员会主席谢春荣 谨启
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)