Berani kerana Benar

Tak Berjuang Maka Tak ada Hasil! Mansuh Undang2 Zalim!

2010-04-06T09:42:00.000-07:00

SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA

Address: 433A, Jalan 5/46, Gasing Indah, 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.

Telephone: +6 03 7784 3525 Fax: +6 03 7784 3526

Email: suaram@suaram. net Web: www.suaram.net

MEMORANDUM KEPADA

SURUHANJAYA HAK ASASI MANUSIA (SUHAKAM)

5HB APRIL 2010

MEMBANTAH PENAHANAN BENJY DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 3, AKTA DADAH BERBAHAYA (LANGKAH-LANGKAH PENCEGAHAN KHAS) 1985 DAN MENUNTUT AGAR TAHANAN DIBERIKAN RUANG UNTUK MENDAPAT BANTUAN GUAMAN

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) mengecam penangkapan dan penahanan terbaru di bawah Seksyen 3, Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 (LLPK) yang mana boleh membenarkan penahanan tanpa bicara selam 60 hari. SUARAM mengecam penggunaan LLPK atau mana-mana undang-undang yang melanggar prinsip asas hak asasi manusia, keadilan dan piawaian antarabangsa berhubung hak asasi.

Pada Hari ini SUARAM bersama dengan ahli keluarga dan pihak peguam ingin membawa perhatian SUHAKAM berkenaan beberapa pencabulan hak asasi yang berlaku dalam penahanan ini dan memohon perhatian segera dalam isu ini.

1. Latar Belakang

1.1 Pada 11.03.2010, Benjy telah ditangkap oleh beberapa anggota polis di tempat letak kereta kondominium Menara Duta 2, Jalan 1/38B Off Jalan Segambut Kuala Lumpur.

1.2 Pada 12.03.2010, pihak polis telah membawa Benjy ke Mahkamah Majistret Kuala Lumpur untuk mendapatkan suatu perintah reman ke atasnya berdasarkan alasan bahawa mereka perlu menyiapkan siasatan di bawah Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (“ADB”). Suatu perintah reman selama 7 hari telah diberikan oleh Mahkamah Majistret.

1.3 Sepanjang tempoh reman selama 7 hari tersebut, Benjy tidak berpeluang untuk mendapatkan bantuan atau nasihat guaman kerana pihak keluarganya termasuk Benjy telah dimaklumkan bahawa beliau tidak boleh diwakili oleh peguam dan tidak ada perlunya untuk beliau atau keluarganya untuk melantik peguam kerana tidak ada apa-apa yang boleh dilakukan oleh peguam.

1.4 Pada 17.03.2010, keluarga Benjy telah bertemu untuk seketika dengan Pemohon di Ibu Pejabat Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur (“IPKKL”), semasa pertemuan tersebut juga pihak polis telah memaklumkan kepada Benjy dan keluarganya bahawa tidak ada perlunya untuk mereka melantik peguam kerana ianya adalah suatu perbuatan yang sia-sia.

1.5 Pada 18.03.2010, tahanan reman Benjy telah dilanjutkan selama 7 hari lagi. Selepas perlanjutan reman tersebut, keluarga Benjy telah melantik peguam.

1.6 Pada 19.03.2010, peguam Benjy telah pergi ke IPKKL dengan tujuan untuk berjumpa dan memberi nasihat guaman kepada beliau selaras dengan Artikel 5(3) Perlembagan Persekutuan dan Seksyen 28A Kanun Acara Jenayah. Namun demikian, peguam Benjy tidak berjaya untuk bertemu dengan Benjy.

1.7 Pada 19.03.2010, peguam Benjy telah menghantar surat rasmi kepada IPKKL meminta supaya perjumpaan dengan Benjy dapat dilaksanakan pada 22.03.2010. Namun demikian, melalui surat bertarikh 22.03.2010 pihak polis telah menyangkal hak Benjy untuk berjumpa dengan peguamnya.

1.8 Pada 23.03.2010 beberapa ahli keluarga Benjy dan peguam telah pergi ke pejabat Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Malaysia (“Suhakam”) untuk membuat aduan berhubung dengan pencabulan hak-hak asasi Pemohon selaras dengan Artikel 5(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

1.9 Pada 24.03.2010, baharulah peguam Benjy dibenarkan untuk berjumpa dengan Pemohon untuk tempoh masa yang singkat iaitu lebih kurang 30 minit sahaja.

1.10 Pada 25.03.2010, lebih kurang pukul 11.30 pagi, Benjy telah dipertuduhkan di Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah (4) Kuala Lumpur dengan satu tuduhan memiliki 0.24 gram methamphetamine di bawah Seksyen 12(2) ADB yang boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen 12(3) ADB. Benjy telah minta untuk dibicarakan terhadap pertuduhannya dan Mahkamah Majistret telah membenarkan Benjy diikat jamin dengan jaminan sebanyak RM2000.00 dengan seorang penjamin.

1.11 Pada lebih kurang 2.00 petang, sejurus sahaja urusan ikat jamin selesai dan semasa Benjy, keluarganya bersama dengan peguamnya hendak keluar dari Pejabat Pendaftaran, Tingkat B1, Kompleks Mahkamah Kuala Lumpur, sekumpulan orang berpakaian biasa telah menghampiri Benjy dan menangkap Pemohon tanpa memperkenalkan diri mereka sebagai anggota polis. Peguam Benjy telah meminta penjelasan dan maklumat berhubung dengan identiti dan pengenalan mereka. Semasa proses tersebut berlaku, peguam Benjy telah dikasari di mana kedua-dua tangannya telah dipegang tanpa kerelaannya oleh beberapa orang yang dipercayai anggota polis.

1.12 Hanya apabila didesak berkali-kali oleh peguam Benjy baharulah seseorang daripada kumpulan tersebut telah memperkenalkan dirinya sebagai seorang Inspektor dan menyatakan bahawa Benjy ditangkap di bawah Seksyen 3 LLPK tanpa memberi alasan mengapa Pemohon ditangkap dibawah Seksyen 3 LLPK. Keluarga Benjy dan peguamnya kemudian telah pergi ke IPKKL dan hanya Berjaya berjumpa dengan Benjy untuk seketika

1.13 Pada 26.03.2010 peguam Pemohon telah menghantar surat kepada Bahagian Risikan Narkotik, IPKKL meminta agar beliau dapat berjumpa dengan Pemohon, tetapi sehingga kini peguam Benbjy masih belum menerima maklum balas bertulis berhubung dengan permohonan akses guaman tersebut.

2. Penafian Khidmat Guaman dan Lawatan Keluarga

2.1 Kami di SUARAM difahamkan bahawa semasa dalam tahanan reman polis keluarga Benjy hanya dibenarkan berjumpa Benjy sebanyak dua kali sahaja iaitu pada 17.03.2010 dan 24.03.2010. Tetapi selepas pembebasan Benjy atas jaminan sebanyak RM2,000.00 dan penangkapan semula pada 25.03.2010, melainkan perjumpaan seketika semasa di IPKKL, ahli keluarga Benjy dan peguam beliau tidak dibenarkan berjumpa dengan Benjy sehingga kini.

2.2 Manakala, peguam Benjy iaitu Amer Hamzah Arshad, juga sehingga kini masih belum dapat berjumpa dengan anak guamnya bagi tujuan akses guaman selepas Benjy ditahan oleh Polis dibawah Seksyen 3 LLPK. Semasa penangkapan semula Benjy di kompleks Mahkamah Kuala Lumpur pada 25.03.2010, peguam Benjy tidak dimaklumkan alasan penangkapan Benjy dibawah Seksyen 3 LLPK.

2.3 Apa yang mengecewakan lagi ialah, semasa penangkapan Benjy, peguamnya telah dihalang oleh pihak polis dan sekaligus tidak memberikan sebarang peluang kepada Peguamnya untuk memberikan khidmat guaman secara efektif kepada anak guamnya semasa insiden penangkapan berlaku. Ini merupakan satu pencabulan hak asasi yang tidak boleh diterima sama sekali.

2.4 Kini penafian kepada khidmat peguam khasnya dalam kes-kes penahanan tanpa bicara menjadi satu amalan dalam pasukan polis dimana para peguam tidak dibenarkan untuk berjumpa dengan anak guam mereka. Ini dapat dilihat dalam kes-kes seperti:

i) Penahanan 5 peguam dari Pusat Bantuan Guaman;

ii) Penafian khidmat peguam kepada 10 tahanan ISA yang ditahan dibawah ISA pada tahun ini.

iii) Penafian secara terus oleh tahanan untuk mendapatkan khidmat peguam dan sekaligus menafikan hak yang terdapat dalam Artikel 5, Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Seksyen 28A Kanun Acara Jenayah.

2.5 Walaupun beberapa percubaan dan perundingan dilakukan bersama dengan polis. namun ianya tidak diberi perhatian oleh pasukan polis yang semakin hari semakin hilang kepercayaan di kalangan rakyat biasa kerana tidak menghormati hak asasi tahanan.

2.6 Ini dengan jelas dapat dilihat dalam Deklarasi hak Asasi Antarabangsa (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) dan Konvenan Antarabangsa Hak Sivil dan Politik (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Dalam konvenan tersebut secara terang dinyatakan bahawa:

The ICCPR guarantees an accused the right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing

Manakala, U.N Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any form of Detention or Imprisonment, approved by the U.N General Assembly in 1988 menyatakan bahawa:

Guarantees the right to meet with counsel while in detention and the right to be visited and communicate with members of one's family.

Sama juga dengan, U.N Basic principles on the Role of Lawyers,

Guarantees the right to counsel and specifies that a detainee should have access to an attorney as soon as practicable after arrest and in any case not later forty-eight hours from the the time and arrest of detention”

3. Penangkapan Semula

3.1 Proses penangkapan semula yang dilakukan oleh pihak polis dan Kementerian dalam Negeri (KDN) dengan menggunakan tuduhan yang sama selepas mahkamah membebaskan tahanan-tahanan khususnya yang ditahan dibawah akta-akta penahanan tanpa bicara atau ‘preventive laws’, telah menjadi satu lagi amalan yang semakin digunakan oleh polis atas arahan KDN ataupun sebaliknya.

3.2 Acapkali, apabila mahkamah membebaskan tahanan-tahanan yang ditahan di bawah ISA, EO ataupun DDA atau LLPK, namun sejurus selepas mahkamah membebaskan tahanan ini, kerajaan atau Polis akan menangkap semula tahanan-tahanan ini atas alasan yang sama yang digunakan sebelum ini. Ini dengan jelas menunjukkan betapa kerajaan dan polis tidak menghormati mahkamah malah menghina proses mahkamah dengan melakukan penangkapan semula yang tidak memberikan hak perbicaraan kepada tahanan. Ini adalah salahguna kuasa oleh polis dan campurtangan Badan Eksekutif yang jelas dalam badan Kehakiman. Mahkamah tidak dapat melindungi tahanan khususnya tahanan-tahanan yang ditahan dibawah akta-akta sedemikian.

3.3 Malah, Konvenan Hak Sivil dan Politik Antarabangsa juga telah menyatakan dengan jelas dalam artikel mereka bahawa:

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offense for which he/she has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country

4. Penahanan Tanpa Bicara

4.1 Isu utama dalam undang-undang pencegahan ini adalah Penahanan Tanpa bicara. Menahan seseorang individu ataupun manusia dibawah akta-akta yang tidak memberikan peluang untuk mendapatkan perbicaraan dan proses bela diri di mahkamah adalah sesuatu yang menyalahi undang-undang Hak asasi Antarabangsa dan Hak asasi seorang manusia yang fundamental seperti yang termaktub dalam Deklarasi Hak Asasi Manusia Sejagat 1948; Fasal 9,10,11 dan 13 Konvenan Antarabangsa Hak Sivil dan Politik 1966 Fasal 9 dan 12, Piagam Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia Fasal 12 dan Perlembagaan Malaysia Fasal 5.

4.2 Tiada seorang pun bersalah sehingga dibuktikan di mahkamah adalah asas utama dalam persoalan penahanan tanpa bicara. Sekiranya ianya tidak dihormati dan dengan adanya kuasa yang berlebihan di tangan kerajaan dan polis maka, undang-undang seperti ini sering digunakan untuk mempertahankan kedudukan pihak kerajaan dan polis yang seringkali gagal untuk membuktikan sebarang individu yang ditahan dibawah akta-akta ini.

4.3 Amatlah memalukan bahawa kerajaan mengamalkan ‘double standards’ dalam isu berhubung ISA, EO dan LLPK. Di satu pihak, rancangan untuk mengkaji semula akta-akta ini dan penahanan terbaru secara sembunyi tanpa sebarang pengumuman dibuat adalah sesuatu yang kontradik. Ini lebih kepada Retorik daripada praktikal. Amalan kerahsiaan dan tidak bermaruah yang menyelubungi Akta-akta penahanan tanpa bicara ini jelas bercanggah dengan prinsip keadilan, kebenaran dan ketelusan. Ianya sekali lagi menggambarkan citra sebenar Akta-akta ini yang sangat arbitrari dan tiada kena mengena dengan keselamatan negara. Kami menuntut kerajaan untuk membebaskan semua tahanan dengan segera atau bicarakan mereka di mahkamah keadilan.

4.4 Maka, dengan ini SUARAM menggesa SUHAKAM agar:

Segera campurtangan dalam soal ini dan memberikan tekanan kepada pihak polis dan pihak kerajaan untuk segera membenarkan para peguam dan ahli keluarga untuk berjumpa dengan tahanan dengan serta merta

Pihak SUHAKAM mengadakan dialog bersama dengan kerajaan dan polis untuk membawa isu penafian khidmat peguam kepada tahanan yang ditahan dibawah ISA, EO dan LLPK.

Menggunakan kuasa/peruntukan undang-undang yang terdapat pada SUHAKAM untuk membawa isu-isu penahanan tanpa bicara dan penggunaan Akta-akta pencegahan ini ke peringkat Antarabangsa dan mendapatkan sokongan mereka untuk memperhentikan Kerajaan Malaysia untuk menindas rakyatnya sendiri dibawah akta-akta seperti ini dan SUHAKAM sebagai Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi haris memastikan rakyat Malaysia selamat, tidak dianiaya dan dilindungi hak asasi mereka.

Disediakan oleh:

Nalini.E

Penyelaras Kempen Tahanan Tanpa Bicara

SUARAM

Blatant Abuse of Power by the Police in Latest DDA Arrest : Release Actor Benjy Immediately!

2010-03-26T02:50:00.000-07:00

SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA

Address: 433A, Jalan 5/46, Gasing Indah, 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor , Malaysia .

Telephone: +6 03 7784 3525 Fax: +6 03 7784 3526

Email: suaram@suaram. net Web: www.suaram.net

Press Statement: 26 March 2010

Blatant Abuse of Power by the Police in Latest DDA Arrest:

Release Actor Benjy Immediately!

SUARAM condemns and expresses its grave concerns over the arrest of actor Khaeryll Benjamin Ibrahim @Benjy under Section 3 of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures) 1985 (DDA), which provides for detention without trial up to 60 days, just minutes after he was released by the Magistrate's Court. No grounds were given as why he was arrested under section 3.

Benjy was freed yesterday (25 March 2010) on a RM2,000 bail with one surety but he was re-arrested by a group of 10 plainclothes personnel at 2.50pm, immediately after his mother, actress Azean Irdawaty, posted bail. None of the arresting policemen informed his mother the reasons of Benjy’s re-arrest and instead referred her to their superior officer for more information. Even the lawyers representing Benjy was not allowed by the police to assist Benjy.

Abuse of power and contempt of court

The re-arrest of detainees after being freed by the court is an outright abuse of the system by the police and the government. The use of the DDA or any other preventive detention laws leave those arrested with almost no recourse against wrongful arrest and detention. Worst still, the detainee will most likely face traumatic experiences in the first 60 days of detention under the DDA. SUARAM has documented numerous allegations of flawed police investigations and acts of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment by the police to obtain confession under duress from the DDA detainees.

The use of the DDA, particularly in instances where individuals have already been freed by the court such as the latest case of Benjy, is a blatant abuse of power by the police. Not only has the police disregarded the Magistrate Court ’s decision to release him on bail by detaining him without trial for 60 days, the DDA further confers powers to the Home Minister to sign two-year detention orders which can be renewed indefinitely at the end of the initial 60-day detention. The Home Minister’s decision cannot be challenged in court.

No justification for DDA (the other ISA )!

SUARAM recognizes the responsibility of the Malaysian government to curb crimes and to deal with drugs dealers, drug addicts, criminals, gangs and syndicates. Notwithstanding this, there is no justification for the government to resort to the use laws such as the DDA which violate human rights.

In societies governed by the rule of law, any person suspected of committing a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law which complies with international fair trial standards. The use of the DDA, however, is clearly in contravention of this universal principle. As such, like the ISA , the DDA has no place in any civilized society!

SUARAM stresses that the arbitrary detention of any individual without trial is a gross violation of fundamental human rights which clearly contravenes Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution.

Release Benjy and all other DDA detainees! Abolish the DDA!

SUARAM therefore demands the police to release Benjy immediately and unconditionally.

SUARAM further strongly calls on the government to abolish the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act (DDA) and other detention-without- trial laws. Those held under these laws must be charged in court or released unconditionally.

Released By,

Nalini, E

Coordinator

Campaign against Detention without Trial

SUARAM

Court of Appeal’s Decision on Abdul Malek Hussein Retrogressive and Unjust!

2010-03-25T09:16:00.000-07:00

SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA

Address: 433A, Jalan 5/46, Gasing Indah, 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor , Malaysia .

Telephone: +6 03 7784 3525 Fax: +6 03 7784 3526

Press Statement: 25 March 2010

Court of Appeal’s Decision on Abdul Malek Hussein

Retrogressive and Unjust!

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) expresses its disappointment over the Court of Appeal’s judgement today which overturned a RM2.5 million award to former Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee Abdul Malek Hussein following an appeal by the Malaysian government.

The appellate court, convened by a panel of three judges, reversed the High Court decision and ruled that Abdul Malek’s detention was lawful and rejected his allegations of torture while in custody. The Court of Appeal thus ruled that Abdul Malek will not receive the damages awarded to him by the High Court and ordered Abdul Malek instead to pay RM50, 000 in costs.

Court Rules In Favour of Human Rights Violators!

The judgement by the Court of Appeals is indeed retrogressive and clearly contravenes basic and universally recognised human rights principles. SUARAM, which has campaigned for the abolition of the ISA since 1989, views this as a black day for human rights in the country, with the courts ruling in favour of blatant violators of human rights and thus denying justice for victims.

SUARAM also views this as another dire attempt by the government to defend the indefensible ISA which allows detention without trial. It is a known fact that all ISA detainees are subjected to severe psychological torture and put in solitary confinement in their 60 days detention. Detention without trial for such a long period without any access to lawyers, family and the outside world is itself a cruel maltreatment to the detainees. Many amongst them, like Abdul Malek, have been subjected to physical torture while in detention.

Malaysia Accepts Torture?

The Court of Appeal’s judgement today, rejecting the findings of the High Court that Abdul Malek was indeed tortured while in detention, did nothing more than to reaffirm the acceptance of torture in the country not only by the Malaysian government – which has still to date refused to ratify the UN’s Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) – but also by the Malaysian judiciary!

SUARAM strongly urges the Malaysian government to immediately ratify the CAT. SUARAM finds no reason for the refusal of the government to do so but for its acceptance of torture as a punishment in the country!

Abolish the ISA!

The absence of judicial checks and balances in ISA detentions has also exacerbated the abuses of power by the police who can get away with impunity. It has also facilitated torture and ill-treatment of detainees. Malaysia cannot call itself a democratic country when there is such a law that permits detention without trial and gross violation of human rights.

SUARAM reiterates its demand that the government abolishes the ISA, frees all detainees or accord them a fair trial. SUARAM stands strongly against any law that provides for detention without trial.

Last but not least, SUARAM reaffirms that it will build on the struggles, sacrifices and perseverance of the numerous courageous ex-ISA detainees and their families who have stood up against the draconian law. With the support of the people, SUARAM will continue the struggle until the ISA is finally abolished.

Released by,

Nalini, E.
SUARAM Coordinator

Background

Abdul Malek Hussein was arrested on the night of September 25, 1998 after addressing a demonstration earlier that afternoon in Masjid Negara. He accused the police of severely assaulting him, physically and mentally.

In the past trial, Malek told the court that he was slapped by the respondent, Borhan bin Haji Daud when he was arrested. Then he was stripped naked and blindfolded during the interrogation period. He was physically assaulted for about 60 times, beaten-up and hit hard on the head until he passed out. He was also forced to swallow liquid with terrible stench, which deemed to be urine. His interrogators also threatened to inject him with the HIV/AIDs virus.

Abdul Malek filed his suit civil suit in March 1999, naming special branch officer Borhan Daud, the then police chief Abdul Rahim Noor and the government as respondents. On 18 October 2007, then Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus, ruled that Abdul Malek's detention during the reformasi demonstrations in 1998, were made in bad faith under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution. He was rewarded RM 2.5 Million for the damages.

Deportation of ISA detainees: Embarrassment to the country!

2010-03-14T23:23:00.000-07:00

JOINT STATEMENT:

SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA (SUARAM)

AND

GERAKAN MANSUHKAN ISA (GMI)

Press Statement: 15 March 2010

Deportation of ISA detainees: Embarrassment to the country!

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) and Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI) strongly condemn the deportation of the five foreigners alleged of being involved in international terrorism. They were among the twelve individuals detained on 21st January 2010 under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for alleged links with international terrorist organisations.

Those detainees who already have been deported are:

NO	Name	Nationality	Status
1.	Azzahari bin Murad	Malaysian	Has been put under the Section 8(5) of the ISA, which allows for restricted residence order. He is restricted to areas in Petaling Jaya.
2.	Aiman Al Dakkak- USM PHD Student	Syrian	Facing Deportation
3.	Mohamed Hozifa (Son of Aiman Al Dakkak)	Syrian	Facing Deportation
4.	Kutiba Al-Issa (Student)	Syrian	Facing Deportation
5.	Khalid Salem Student	Yemeni	Deported on 6^th March 2010
6.	Luqman Abdul Salam (Student)	Nigerian	Deported on 13th March 2010
7.	Hassan Barudi (Student)	Syrian	Facing Deportation
8.	Hussam Khalid (Student)	Jordanian	Deported on 15th March 2010
9.	Abdul Alhi Bolajoko Uthman (Student)	Nigerian	Deported on 14th March 2010

According to the Government, the detainees who have been deported were “released” from the ISA and that they are handed over to the Immigration Department because their visa to stay in Malaysia has expired. The similar argument was also put forward by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on the 11th of March 2010 to reject and dismiss the detainees’ habeas corpus application. Therefore, the habeas corpus application to examine their detention has become academic.

SUARAM and GMI regrets that the Home Minister who controls both the Police and Immigration Department, has made decisions to disallow the detainees from seeing their respective legal counsels during their detention under the section 73 of the draconian ISA. We do not see any security or diplomacy difficulties in allowing the lawyers to perform their duty. The denial of access to legal assistance and the deportation of the detainees without proper trial are totally uncalled for and embarrassing. The government is not even bothered to provide a reasonable answer for their irresponsible actions. This is a typical case of how arrogant the authorities can be when granted absolute power. We view the authorities’ move to deport the detainees as malicious.

We have also learnt that the detainee from Yemen, Khaleed Salem who were repatriated to his respective country or origin are now under police custody in his country and are experiencing another round of investigations. This is unfair to the detainee who until now, have failed to be produced before a court. On the other hand, the two other Nigerian detainees have been released by their government and there is not even single charge brought against them.

Furthermore, the families of those who have been deported are still living in Malaysia and without any welfare assistance from the government. We urge the government to take care of the families’ welfare and their daily needs as the government is responsible for making the wives’ life miserable without their husbands and the children without their father.

SUARAM and GMI recognize the seriousness of the terrorist activities and are of the view that proper measures should be taken to improve the situation. However, these measures must nevertheless be consistent with international human rights standards and norms. Detaining any individuals without trial under the ISA breaches fundamental human rights that are enshrined in, among others, article 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights –

v “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” and

v “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”

The use of the ISA on the current detainees demonstrates yet again how the state can arbitrarily use this infamous tool on anyone. ISA is a very convenient tool to cover-up real issues and weaknesses of the system.

SUARAM and GMI also reiterate that punishing or detaining people without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves is barbaric. Uncivilized laws that permit detention without trial are a pain of the democratic system and must be abolished.

Abolish ISA!

Release All the ISA detainees!

Close Down KEMTA!

By,

Nalini.E

GMI Secretariat and SUARAM Coordinator

Protest demo against GST put off (Mkini)

2010-03-13T21:28:00.000-08:00

The Protes coalition of activist groups and opposition parties against the Goods and Services Tax (GST) bill announced today that the demonstration planned for tomorrow at Parliament has been cancelled.

Protes said this follows Second Finance Minister Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah's announcement that the bill, scheduled for second reading on Monday when Parliament reconvenes, has been postponed to enable the government to get more public feedback on the contentious tax.

The coalition yesterday declared a preliminary victory over Husni's announcement, describing it as a vindication of the coalition's public campaign against the GST, which they said would burden lower-income earners.

Speaking at a press conference this morning at PAS' headquarters in Kuala Lumpur, Dr Hatta Ramli (second from left) - who is chairperson of Protes and PAS treasurer-general - said the postponement of the demonstration showed the coalition is "reasonable."

The decision to put off the event to a yet undetermined date is due to "current developments", Hatta said further. He stressed, however, that Protes' efforts to campaign against the GST in the form of roadshows and other events would continue.

It was reported yesterday that Husni said the GST "will not be tabled for second reading in the March/April session (of Parliament) because we need more time to engage with the public."

The bill was first tabled in Parliament last December.

On when the bill would be tabled, Husni said: "It will depend on our engagement with the public and how the rakyat perceives the implementation of GST. So, we do not want to put a time-frame on that."

Also at the press conference today were Parti Sosialis Malaysia's (PSM) secretery-general S Arutchelvan, Y Kohila of the grassroots Network of Oppressed Peoples (Jerit) movement, Federal Territory PAS Youth chief Kamaruzaman Mohamed and PAS Muslimat secretary Aiman Atirah Al-Jundi.

Protes had planned to gather 2,000 activists and supporters to Parliament tomorrow to protest against the GST.

The event had led Kuala Lumpur police chief Muhammad Sabtu Othman to issue a warning against the demonstrators.

Detention of Minors under the EO is Arbitrary!

2010-03-13T09:30:00.000-08:00

SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA

Address: 433A, Jalan 5/46, Gasing Indah, 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor , Malaysia .

Telephone: +6 03 7784 3525 Fax: +6 03 7784 3526

Email: suaram@suaram. net Web: www.suaram.net

Press Statement: 12 March 2010

Detention of Minors under the EO is Arbitrary!

Suaram expresses disappointment and concern over the detention of the three minors and one youth under the Restricted Residence Act (RRA) 1933 for 2 years. The detention order under the RRA was issued by the Home Minister on 11^thMarch 2010. The four individuals are Jagendran s/o Panir Selvam (920522-05-5586) , Gunaseelan s/o Suppiah (940723-10-5755) , Puspanathan s/o Muniandy (940328-10-5595) dan Rajkumar s/o Vijayan (890711-14-5589) .

The four were arrested by the Kajang District police officers on the 21^st December 2009, allegedly for involvement in being public nuisance and for possession of a stolen vehicle in their residential area in Semenyih. But until today these allegations against them have not been proved in any court. On the other hand, the four of them have also been brought on a 'remand roadshow' by the police before being pinned under the Emergency Ordinance (Public Order and Crime Prevention). On 10^th January 2010, they were served with detention order under the EO which allows for detention without trial. The four have been detained for 60 days and they were tortured physically and mentally by the police during the entire duration of their detention.

SUARAM is appalled at the increasing number of minors detained under the EO. SUARAM strongly condemns the Minister’s decision to pursue the detention of the minors and the youth under the RRA. Worst still, the detainees will most likely face traumatic experiences and difficulties in their new restricted area. Their rights to move freely, rights to education and more importantly, rights to live a better life with their family have been deprived. This is an outright abuse of power by the Minister who has been blindly signing the detention order. The gross misuse and abuse of the EO on ordinary citizens of the country does not merely lie with the police but with the slipshod manner of the Home Ministry itself.

As of December 2009, it was reported by the media that 819 persons were being detained without trial under the EO at Simpang Renggam Detention Centre and other detention centres around the country. This number does not include those detained without trial in other detention centres around the country. Going by this number of people detained, the EO can be deemed to be ten times worse than the infamous Internal Security Act (ISA) which also allows for arbitrary detention.

SUARAM recognizes the responsibility of the Malaysian government to curb crime and to deal with criminals, gangs and syndicates. But the government should not resort to means that violates human rights such as the EO in efforts to address criminal activity. Unfortunately in Malaysia, EO has been frequently abused by the police and government to deal with suspects of petty crimes. This is an outright misuse of power by the police and the Home Ministry in dealing with the EO detainees, particularly when they have absolute power and their decision cannot be challenged in court. Detention of any individual without trial is a violation of fundamental human rights.

SUARAM urges the government to withdraw the restricted order that have been served to the four of the detainees that have been mention above and immediately release them without any further conditions.

Detention without trial is a gross human rights violation. It violates Article 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and Article 8 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Federal Constitution which guarantees due process and security of persons.

Malaysia has adequate laws in the Child Act 2001 that provides proper procedures of handing arrests and detention of children. Malaysia has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and is obligated to protect and uphold the rights of the child. By detaining minors and subjecting them to such harsh treatment, the government is committing a blatant violation of child rights.

Therefore, we call up on the government to:

Immediately repeal the EO, DDA and ISA;
Stop re-arresting individuals under the same law (or any other preventive laws) especially those released by the courts through habeas corpus applications or through the recommendations of the Advisory Board ; if need be, they should be charged under existing criminal laws;
Stop arresting minors under the EO and respect their rights as laid out under CRC;
The police should immediately stop making any further arrests under EO ;
All those who are currently detained or restricted under EO should be released immediately or be charged in open court under existing criminal laws.

Released By,

Nalini.E

Detention without Trial Coordinator,

SUARAM

Endless struggle...

2009-09-15T09:17:00.000-07:00

Today would be one of the happiest day in my life..

" Nalini Rahim from Malaysiakini told me that 5 ISA detainees released and Mat Sah one of them"... Kak Laila told me ln a doubtful voice..

"you boleh check tak news ini", Kak Laila
"ok.. i'll call rahim then confirmkan dengan dia", i told kak laila..
"Rahim betul keh news ini? Betul hishamudin mention nama Mat Sah? Siapa lagi yang bebas?"
"Betul Nalini.. Dia memang mention nama Mat Sah". Rahim, journalist from Malaysiakini...
i put down the phone and i went to my colleague John and i told him that 5 people have been released and Mat sah one of them.. he looks happy as well..then i started to get the sms from few of my friends from HRC and also some other friends who get the news about the latest release. without delay, i send sms to all the GMI committee members.. In my sms i wrote " Dear All, 5 more ISA detainees akan release. Rahim from Mkini told me that Hishamudin mention Mat Sah's name dalam dia punya kenyataan. Lets hope for the best"... I started to get very fast reply from all of them.. .i calledl latheefa and edmund bon, who is also council member for Mat sah and also our ISA lawyers (thats how we always refer them!)... Lat was very excited and she was hoping that this release would end kak laila and her son's nightmare for past 8 years...

10 minutes later, i got sms from Yanti, one of my friend from Bar Council HRC... she send me the 5 names. after i saw the names i could only say " Hidup perjuangan"...

I join suaram 3 years ago... i'm the coordinator for the detention without trial desk in suaram.. The first detainees name that i was very familiar was Mat Sah satray because he is Kak Laila;s husband and kak laila was there in GMI. She is part of the GMI committee and also GMI's most powerful asset cause she is representing the families of the ISA detainees...

This year when the 5 hindraf released she was very upset cause mat sah not one of those released. She told me that , " Nalini you know what, you are the 4th GMI secretary from SUARAM.. Suaram coordinator is changing but my husband still inside.. Do you think mat sah will be released during your time? or i will have to see another coordinator from suaram and my hubby still has not released?".. that was the questions she asked to me.. i was quite sad when she throw the questions to me. I replied to her by saying that " Kak laila dont give up cause i'm not going to give up until the ISA abolished.. I promise i'll be with you and we will see mat sah release one day and i still will be the secretary of GMI...".. She laughed and she told me that it will happen one day and she promised me that i'll be the first person to know the news about Mat Sah release....

And today its come true... 15 September 2009, around 4.40pm Kak laila called me to tell that Mat Sah is released!... She told me that as she promised i'm the the first person that she called and followed by kak nash and syed... she sounds very happy.. after a while i told her that "kak laila, alhamdullilah and you know what i'm still the secretary of GMI"... we laughed!

Although i'm happy for this five detainees, and of course personally for Mat Sah, Suhaib and Kak Laila, but i'm still upset... i'm still angry and still thinking about the rest who is still being detained under the ISA..what will happen to their families ? when they will be released??? when the government will charge them? when they will be brought to court? all this questions keeps on coming up to my mind....!!!!!!!! and still thinking what next?? How to campaign to abolish ISA immediately? Gosh lots to do!

Its and endless job! We shouldn't give up!I wont give up until i see the change! I do this for the future generation!

"Sejarah akan melabel saya sebagai pengkhianat sekiranya saya tidak berjuang pada hari ini untuk generasi akan datang dan untuk sistem yang saksama"

So lets continue our work!

Hidup Rakyat! Hidup Perjuangan!

Nalini.E
11.21pm
15/9/09

So many things happening around us!

2009-08-16T20:38:00.001-07:00

H1N1, political crisis, by election, MACC raids, pakatan rakyat, KampungBuah pala, global econony crisis and many others. Its more exciting to live in Malaysia nowdays... so many things happening around us and there is no space or enough time for us to concerntrate in one issue. When people are talking about MACC then comes the another serious matter H1N1. Then all the focus when to that!

Political crisis seems to be very often and getting more attentions here in malaysia. Its quite interesting cause the component parties in the ruling party will be accusing each other. Then its not stop right there its also imported to the pakatan rakyat. Accusing and blaming each other.

Almost everyday we are watching this drama's from the political arena. This drama caused the real people's problem have been forgotten. Now the questions is are we going to waste our time on accusing and blaming each other or are we going to strengthen our movement to get people's support by resolving their problems????

I dont know this question will be answer or not but what do i know is that the frustration among the rakyat is increasing day by day.... How we going to resolve this???

Nalini
11.56am
Monday (17/8/09)

CROSS TALK: Face-off on ISA street

2009-08-09T01:15:00.000-07:00

CROSS TALK: Face-off on ISA street

2009/08/08

WHY OPPOSE OR SUPPORT THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT?

Magaran legal adviser Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz (left) and GMI chairman Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh.

Syed Ibrahim: We oppose the act because it is against the process of justice, it violates human rights and is open to abuse by allowing the authorities to be the judge, jury and executioner.

The ISA denies a suspect a fair trial, legal counsel and allows a person to be remanded, initially up to 60 days (under Section 73 of the Act), a further two years and longer if necessary. The detainee is open to mental and physical torture.

Khairul Azam: We support the ISA but it must be used in a professional manner. And by supporting the act, it does not mean that we support the government of the day.

Our consensus is based on the rules, regulations and laws of the country where the Federal Constitution reigns su-preme. The ISA is perfectly enacted under Article 149 of the Federal Constitution, which was formulated as a social contract among the main political parties.

The main pillars which we support are: that Islam is the religion of the Federation; that the king is the supreme head of the Federation; to safeguard the Malay ruler's sovereignty; provisions for the special court; that no legal proceedings otherwise can be instituted against the Malay rulers without the consent of the attorney-general; that the national language is Bahasa Malaysia; and the reservation of quotas, including services and permits, for the Bumiputeras.

DID YOUR GROUP PARTICIPATE LAST SATURDAY?

Syed Ibrahim: Yes. Our coalition comprised non-governmental organisations, students, members of political parties, human rights activists, women's organisations and ethnic groups.

We expected more than 100,000, but some 70,000 eventually turned up in various parts of the city.

In fact, hundreds were hauled up by the police even before the march (to Istana Negara) began (from various locations).

Khairul Azam: We were there (on Saturday) from 9am. An hour later, when some of us attempted to gather at Central Market, we were hauled up by the police and told to disperse for wearing pro-ISA T-shirts.

We did not carry any banners, wear headbands or badges. I then bought a "Visit Malaysia " T-shirt and wore it over my pro-ISA T-shirt. After that, there were no problems with the police. We did not provoke the police but respected them instead.

Shortly later, I convened a press conference in the same area.

DID POLICE INTERVENTION FORCE A PULLOUT?

Syed Ibrahim: No. There was solidarity among us despite the heavy-handedness of the authorities.

Khairul Azam: Yes. As law-abiding citizens, we abided. I, too, followed the police's advice. I am a former lawyer and I do not represent any political party.

My application to join Pas' Sungai Ramal branch in Kajang was made in January but until now there is no response from them.

WHY GO AHEAD IN SPITE OF THE WARNINGS?

Syed Ibrahim: We wanted to express solidarity. We did it in accordance with provisions in the Federal Constitution.

Article 10(1)(b) gives us the right to a peaceful assembly; only that it has (dubious and restrictive) clauses like the one that requires a police permit. We did give notice to the police, the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) and Home Ministry. We were transparent and had no ulterior motives.

All the authorities had to do was allow us reasonable time to peacefully march and hand over our memorandum to the palace.

Khairul Azam: We took heed of the authorities' advice. We gathered but did not go on with the rally. We realised that peaceful assemblies cannot be held without approval from the authorities.

Let's not refer to international human rights conventions. Let's just look at the laws of our country -- the Rukun Negara as a guide.

Even Article 10 of the Federal Constitution clearly states that the freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly without arms and the right for citizens to form associations, can be exercised subject to clauses (2), (3) and (4) that touch on morality, public order and national security.

DOES ANTI-ISA MEAN SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM?

Syed Ibrahim: Not at all. If laws like the ISA are used to detain those detrimental to national security, terrorists like (Jemaah Islamiyah Singapore leader) Mas Selamat Kastari and (Jemaah Islamiyah splinter group leader and master bomb maker) Noordin Mat Top, we are all for it.

But the authorities cannot use the ISA against peaceful protesters. Then again, there are provisions and applications in the law when detaining terrorists. You cannot simply treat them like animals.

In fact, the ISA can make way for the preventive "Anti-Terrorism Law" drafted in 2003. Why has it not been tabled in Parliament?

Khairul Azam: That's why we need laws like the ISA. If left unchecked, it can lead to terrorism.

THE MESSAGE INTENDED

Syed Ibrahim: We have no political agenda. We are not asking for absolute rights or something "out of the moon", just a check and balance along the principles of justice and basic human rights for all.

The rally was one way to get the message across to authorities and the government, especially with numerous cases of human rights violation of late -- the most recent being the one involving Malek Hus-sin, who was awarded RM2.5 million in damages following his unlawful arrest and detention under the ISA.

Khairul Azam: We urge the rakyat to rethink their actions. Know the law for your own safety. Don't just listen to politicians. Why take part in the rally in the first place? What benefits are there?

Politicians are cunning. They have their agenda to pursue at the expense of the people.

Lawyers act for their paymasters. It's business for them.

WAS A MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED TO THE KING?

Syed Ibrahim: We have prepared a "people's memorandum" carrying the voice of the rakyat, which we hope would receive the king's attention. Thus far, we have been prevented from presenting the memorandum to the king.

Khairul Azam: Yes, we did. I personally left a copy at the palace gates and sent a registered mail to the palace.

ADVICE TO THE OPPONENTS OR PROPONENTS

Syed Ibrahim: We hope the pro-ISA coalition understands our struggles. Let's respect each other's rights.

We do not want to compromise national security but don't abuse the ISA in favour of someone else's agenda, for political mileage or to use it along racial lines. Even during war, captured enemies and prisoners of war are accorded human rights.

Our rallies have always been peaceful, non-provocative and non-violent. We have even advised our supporters not to retaliate against the police. We are open to talks or debate with anyone.

Khairul Azam: Be responsible citizens and obey the laws of the country.

If not, surrender your citizenship and go live elsewhere. Or wait till you form the new government; you can then amend the laws in your favour.

MEMBERSHIP

Syed Ibrahim: Our coalition represents 83 organisations comprising several million supporters.

Khairul Azam: We have 356 NGOs with more than 100,000 supporters. The numbers are increasing each day.

There are no membership fees. They just want to support the rule of law.

CAN YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ARRESTS?

Syed Ibrahim: Yes, we can. We had duly consulted and advised all concerned of the consequences.

We also had consultations with Suhakam and the Bar Council, which agreed to act as observers. The Bar Council assured us legal aid.

As for the presence of juveniles, the parents exercised their right to be in a public area and be part of a peaceful rally. There were no arms or acts of violence. We are disappointed that no proper welfare was accorded to the detained juveniles while in lock-up.

All costs, including bails and legal fees, are borne by our coalition.

Khairul Azam: We are not involved.

2. Semoga ada manfaatnya dan bertemu lagi dalam perkongsian akan datang.

Syed Ibrahim Alhabshi

9 Ogos 2009

Chai Yi (SUARAM Staff)

2009-08-07T03:49:00.000-07:00

Today (7 August 09) is the final day Chai Yi as a SUARAM staff.. She will be leaving to New Zea land for 6 months working holiday.. Sad cause she is leaving.. I'm losing my neighbor in office, my DeMO partner and also a good friend at least for six months.

She always been a wonderful colleague and also friend. If you ever come to SUARAM you can hear we call chai yi's name whenever there is a problems with our PC or anything.. She will be the first person that we will refer to... If she is not around we will be very panic and started to call her..

I still can remember when Chai yi scold John, if he fail to understand whatever she is trying to say related to technology, computer ... and more...

I still not feel very happy that we havent do a proper fairwell dinner or proper goodbye for her. Sorry for that Chai Yi... But after John and Temme return we will do a proper goodbye for you! You always been a wonderful human being and a great teacher in all issues related to work, PC and so many others... We will definetly miss you! I'm sure your humanrights work wouldnt be stop here.. please comeback as soon as you finished your holiday.. We will need you! the struggle needs you!

By,

Nalini
10.25pm
7/8/09

Frm Left front: Chai yi, Myself, Arul, Temme, Izwan,
Moon hui (behind frm left) and Heng Lung at Dang wangi police station
on 4th Aug 09

MALAYSIA: Stop the violent repression of demonstrations against the Internal Security Act (ISA)!

2009-08-07T03:21:00.000-07:00

PRESS RELEASE

MALAYSIA: Stop the violent repression of demonstrations

against the Internal Security Act (ISA)!

Geneva-Kuala Lumpur, 7 August 2009. The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and its member organisation in Malaysia, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), express their utmost concern about the repression of the peaceful demonstration that took place on 1 August 2009 in Kuala Lumpur in order to denounce the Internal Security Act (ISA), and during which nearly 600 people were arrested, including children.

On 1 August 2009, thousands of police and security forces, including riot squad members, strongly repressed the peaceful rally organised by the civil society in order to challenge the 1960 enacted ISA, which permits indefinite detention without charge or trial of persons for security concerns.

From 2.30 pm onwards, the police started shooting tear gas and spraying chemical-laced water cannons towards the 10,000-strong crowd near Sogo shopping complex in Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman to force them to disperse. Another 2,000-strong crowd that marched from Masjid Negara to Pasar Seni were surrounded by FRU and police at Dataran Merdeka. Tear gas and chemical-laced water cannons were also used during aggressive attempts at dispersing the crowd.

The police then arrested at least 589 people, including 44 juveniles, and most of them were detained at Markas Pasukan Gerakan Am Cheras. A small group was also detained in Bukit Jalil police station. All but 91 of the persons arrested were released on the same day, and three children aged from 13 to 16 years old were detained overnight at the Petaling district police station. On 2 August 2009, around 60 persons were released. And around 30 detainees were remanded for two days at the Bukit Jalil police station and charged with different offences, including for taking part in an “illegal assembly” and for “assisting in the distribution of t-shirts for an unlawful society known as the Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA”.

OMCT and SUARAM recall that over the past years, the Malaysian Government has systematically repressed every peaceful protests organised by civil society activists to protest the 1960 ISA, as illustrated in June 2009 when five undergraduates were found guilty of taking part in an illegal anti-ISA rally eight years ago and each condemned to a fine of RM 3, 900 (approx. 780 Euros).

OMCT and SUARAM strongly condemn the violent repression of the peaceful rally, which constitutes a violation of the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly, as well as the use of violence, tear gas and chemical-laced water cannons against the protesters. OMCT and SUARAM also condemn the fact that children were handcuffed, mixed in cells with adults, not allowed to access legal assistance, separated from their parents and denied food for hours, in violation of articles 37 and 40 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Accordingly, OMCT and SUARAM call upon the Malaysian authorities to stop any kind of harassment against the persons arrested, and to drop the charges against all peaceful protesters.

OMCT and SUARAM also note with disappointment that the Malaysian Human Rights Commission’s (SUHAKAM) call to the police and Government to respect the right to peaceful assembly is belated and contradictory, as SUHAKAM had refused to monitor the protest on the basis that the police did not grant a permit to hold the demonstration. Both organisations urge SUHAKAM to fulfil its human rights protection mandate by including pre-emptive actions in situations where human rights violations are expected to occur.

Both organisations further call upon the competent Malaysian authorities to carry out a prompt, effective, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into these events to examine whether the use of force by police was consistent with national law and international standards, including the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, and then identify all those responsible, bring them to trial and apply the penal and/or administrative sanctions as provided by law.

More generally, OMCT and SUARAM urge the Malaysian Government and the police force to put an immediate end to the continued crackdown on freedoms of the Malaysian civil society.

Finally, in light of the human rights abuses that the ISA has facilitated, both organisations reiterate their call upon the Malaysian Government to take the necessary steps to repeal the law in order to respect fundamental rights and freedoms, and release all the remaining individuals detained under the ISA in the absence of valid legal charges that are consistent with international legal standards, or if such charges exist, bring them before an impartial and competent tribunal and guarantee their procedural rights at all times.

For further information, please contact:

OMCT: Alexandra Kossin: Tel: + 41 22 809 49 39, Email: omct@omct.org
SUARAM: Nalini. E: Tel. + 6 03 7784 3525, Email: suaram@suaram.net

ANTI ISA PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY: THE AFTERMATH

2009-08-07T03:11:00.000-07:00

On Thursday evening, there was a briefing held for volunteer lawyers sitting on the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre Urgent Arrest Team to provide legal assistance in case of arrests which would result from the anti-ISA peaceful assembly which was scheduled to be held on 1 August 2009 at 2.00pm. Every one had a feeling there were going to be massive arrests on August 1. We decided to document details of the arrests and only after the event ended we would be at the respective police stations to render legal assistance. Every one was all prepared, the list of lawyers’ contact numbers and case laws to be used for purposes of remand hearing.

As early as 9 am in the morning I had been receiving messages after messages confirming arrests. I just couldn’t help waiting no more that I decided to go to the Legal Aid Centre at Masjid Jame’ to join my fellow comrades who were already there. We prepared a long list of names and details of those who got arrested. A few of my comrades and I took turn to go to ground zero to monitor the situation.

The crowd was not provocative, unarmed and all that they did was stand in one corner. All that they had with them was a conviction that ISA must be abolished as it violates human rights principle. At this moment, I will not delve into the issue of the right to peaceful assembly as provided for under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, explained in length by SUHAKAM in its recommendation to the Government following the Kesas Highway and KLCC Bloody Sunday Public Inquiries and the practice of other countries such as the United States, Canada, Italy, etc which suggest one common point: the Police should facilitate the participants of a peaceful assembly, not to impede them.

Before I write more on my personal accounts as to how the whole event unfolded, let me quote some typical statements made by some sectors of the society.

Statement No. 1 – You lawyers all you know is right, right, right!
Statement No. 2- Not all police are bad okay!
Statement No. 3- You lawyers, all you know is to bash “us”, you think all lawyers are good?-since lawyers are always accused of being in the opposition, I figure you know what “us” means.
Statement No. 4- I’m so worried, you are being used by some people.
Statement No. 5- Law is a matter of interpretation. Period!

Fact No 1

Nowhere in the world there is a rule that says Police can beat you up whilst discharging their statutory duties. Police brutality is a crime.

Refer : United Nation Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

I witnessed before my own eyes, 2 participants were stomped by 4 to 5 police men. The man was lying helplessly on the ground with his hands up trying to protect his body and his face. I ran towards the man and demanded the police to stop using force as the first man was not violent and he was in no way resisting the arrest. He was lucky that they actually let him stand up and walked towards the police truck. The second man was unfortunate that the moment I got there, he was already black and blue, beaten up by the police. I again demanded them to stop, some of them left the man and came towards me and started shouting. I told them no one has the right to act like barbarians and beat people up like nobody’s business, these people are human beings. They are unarmed and helpless. The police shouted “You lawyers all you know is right, right, right, go to court to fight for those rights!”.

Conclusion : you can murder just anybody, you can inflict harm on just anybody, let the person die first and later ask the family and the lawyer to go to the court to seek justice. This standard practice can only be traced back to Nazi time.

Fact No. 2

Right to Legal Representation

Refer : Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution and Section 28A(2) to (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

When all the urgent arrest lawyers were still at the centre collecting all details of arrests, we managed to talk to the arrested persons on the phone. We advised them that they had to inform the Police that they needed to see their lawyers. We also advised them not to sign any statements until they see their lawyers. One man was on the phone with me. He told me that all of them were forced to give statements even though they have informed that they needed to see the lawyers first.

While he was still on the phone, I demanded to talk to the I.O, he passed the phone to one police officer, his name was Roslan. I told him, I need to see my client and he has the right to see me before doing anything. He stopped talking to me but I can still hear on the phone he said to my client “why are you calling your lawyer?? I trust you and now you go tell your lawyer??”. This is nothing but a deliberate act of intimidation aiming at preventing them from seeing their lawyers.

Forced to give statement? Section 112 of the CPC gives the right to silence. Any suspected persons have the right not to say a word to the Police. Which part of the section needs interpretation?

Fact No. 3

Nowhere in the world there is a rule that says the Police can lie as much as they want.

Refer : Your conscience, religious teachings.

It’s common to hear people say “Lawyers are liars”. Those who classify themselves as “us” would go further quoting "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." This phrase is from Shakespeare's Henry VI and the best part is, they forget to mention that this phrase was uttered by the villain. If you ask me what is my take on people who lie, I would say any single human being is capable of lying. The difference between a 7 year old kid who lies about his examination result and someone who is entrusted to carry out public duty is strikingly obvious. In Islam, people who lie are known as “munafiq” based on this particular tradition of the Prophet : "The signs of the hypocrite are three: when he speaks he lies, when he promises he breaks his promise and when he is entrusted he betrays the trust." (Bukhari and Muslim)

Umar mentioned the hadith of the Prophet : "The thing from which I fear for you the most is the knowledgeable hypocrite." Umar was then asked: "How can a hypocrite be knowledgeable?" To which Umar answered: "He speaks with wisdom but acts with injustice."

On that day, the Police keep uttering this statement God knows how many times “you are Malay, help other Malays la, why are doing all these things” -this is what we call “the Melayu thing”, which until now I cant figure out what does it have to do with the violations they committed. The reason why I quote the Prophet’s traditions as stated above is because I believe they are well aware of who the Prophet was and I think it’s not too much for me to assume that they should be familiar with this basic simple rule on lying. Again, why do I quote the Prophet’s traditions on munafiq? The reason is I couldn’t find anything on this (lying) from the so called “Melayu thing”, even if I crack my head open I could never recall whether I was ever taught in my religious school back then when I was in standard 3 that “Melayu thing” prevails over the teaching of the religion.
And why lying is a grave sin? Because people who lie can never do justice, particularly when those people are entrusted to carry out their duties with integrity and trust. The above mentioned tradition of the Prophet describes what “knowledgeable hypocrite” is. The words the Prophet used to describe this kind of people are “the thing which I fear for you the most…) show very clearly the severity of the act of hypocrisy by people who are entrusted to act justly.

Lies,lies and lies

Lie No. 1- When all the lawyers were trying to get access to see the clients outside the FRU Complex in Cheras, we were told that the detainees were about to be brought to Dang Wangi Police Station. We straight away made our way to Dang Wangi Police Station the moment we saw two trucks came out of the complex. Suddenly we got a call form our client saying that the Police actually took them to Bukit Jalil Police Station.

Lie No. 2- the woman detainees requested the Police to bring them to a place where they can perform their prayers after the arrests, the police officer said yes, and the next thing they knew was they were all put in the lock up.

Lie No. 3- 3 juveniles who were separated from the parents went missing in Police custody. While the father of one child was frantically looking for his son, the Police said “I don’t know, we don’t know where he is”. When the father came to see us in Bukit Jalil Police Station, we told the police that we wanted to lodge a police report on a missing person, and the interesting part is, this person went missing in police custody!. They panicked and suddenly they said “ya, the child is in Petaling police station”.

Lie No. 4- some of our clients were elderly and seriously ill. We managed to get someone to get the medicines for them. We gave the medicines to the Police and asked the police to pass them to our clients. They said they would do that. The next morning, when we went to the police station for remand hearing, we were informed by our clients that the Police never gave the medicines to them.

Lie No. 5- the woman detainees demanded to see their lawyers as they were in contact with us the moment the got arrested and they were fully aware of the fact that the lawyers were outside trying to get access to see them. One lady officer told them “why do you want to see your lawyers, they are not here”.

Lie No. 6- one man who was just released wanted to lodge a police report as he just lost his IC which was taken and kept by the police upon his arrest. He was prevented to lodge a report saying that the police were the ones responsible for his lost IC. The family members came to see me and asked me to help him out on this. I went in, I asked the police what was the problem. They finally had to allow him to report on what actually happened.

As I walked out of the police station, a friend said to me : “imagine, what would happen to people who don’t have lawyers to be with them, imagine the things the police are capable of doing”.

Fact No 5

“to take statement from the suspect and to obtain further information are not valid grounds to justify remand order” . These two grounds are clearly enunciated in the case of :

1) DASTHIGEER MOHAMED ISMAIL v. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR,ABDUL WAHAB PATAIL J,[CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO: 44-6-99]4 MARCH 1999

2)IN RE MOHAMAD EZAM MOHD NOR, HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR, ABDUL WAHAB PATAIL J, [CRIMINAL TRIAL NO: 43-12-2001],10 APRIL 2001

3)SAUL HAMID PAKIR MOHAMED v.PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT MALAYA, PENANG,EDGAR JOSEPH JR J [CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 53-8-87] 4 JUNE 1987

4)IN RE SYED MOHAMMAD SYED ISA & ORS HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR, ABDUL WAHAB PATAIL J,[CRIMINAL REVISION NOS: 43-03-2001, 43-05-2001, 43-06-2001& 43-07-2001]

To explain the above law on remand in a simpler term, when someone is arrested, the police may only detain that person up to 24 hours for investigation. The duty of the police is to complete investigation within 24 hours and to release the person as soon as possible. If the police cannot complete investigation within 24 hours, the police must bring the person before a magistrate for a remand order to extend his detention beyond 24 hours.

For the police to ask for remand order, they have to specify the grounds of the application, not the purpose of the application (as decided in the case of Saul Hamid). The onus is upon the applicant (the police) for an order for remand to satisfy the magistrate that an order to remand the suspect is necessary (as decided in the case of In Re Syed Mohammad Syed Isa & Ors).

Finally I figured out why on earth the police despise the word “right” so much. During the remand hearing, the police did not even bring one single case law to substantiate their application for remand. If only they read the cases I just cited above, they might suffocate and fall to the ground having to swallow repeated mention of the word “right” and “liberty” by the Court which form the very foundation of a just criminal justice system,. Mind you that the police are the ones who have to prove the ground to justify their application for remand and they couldn’t even be bothered to do research and bring a case law to the Court.

Which part of the principles enunciated in the cases above needs interpretation?

The “so called ground” given by the police on the remand day:

1) to obtain further information
2) to take further statement from the suspect

Some detainees were released and some were remanded. I find this part rather puzzling. The police repeated the same grounds which run contrary to the case laws cited above, and yet the magistrate could grant different orders. Strange? No it’s not. Apparently it has been the standard practice as far as I could recall.

Fact No. 6

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of your nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion etc. The fact that you are a human being gives you these inherent rights, regardless who you are, whether you are a prisoner, a student, a child, a refugee, a migrant, a detained person etc.

Refer : Declaration of the Rights of Man, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Child Act 2001, Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) which has been ratified by Malaysia.

Violations committed on the detained persons on that day:-

1- The juveniles were denied food and drinks for almost 8 hours.
2- The male detainees were asked to drink from the toilet pipe even though there were proper food and drinks provided for people in detention.
3- The detainees were denied the right to practice their religious obligation (prayers).
4- The detainees were forced and intimidated to give statement without the presence of lawyers. Mind you that the law gives the right to refuse giving statement (the right to silence)
5- The police seized the IC, handphones and other belongings of the detainees upon their arrests without filling up the list. They deliberately refused to return all the belongings upon their release.
6- The Juveniles were held in the lock up together with adults. This is in contravention with the provisions of the Child Act 2001 and the CRC.
7- One juvenile had a fever when he was detained and no medical assistance was given to him. This is in contravention with the Child Act 2001 and CRC.

Coming back to the typical statements I stated above. Some might say, what is the relevance? That’s the whole point I’m trying to make. People deliberately close their eyes to these atrocities and they resort to saying all those typical statements to justify their inaction, ignorance and refusal to admit to the truth. We don’t need to respond to those typical statements as the time used to respond to those statements would be much better used to help those who are oppressed and violated.

If you fail to see your own reflection in the human being standing in front of you, …please tell me what I should refer you as.

“Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher, For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself.”Justice Louis D. Brandeis – 1920

ISA Poll on the KDN Website: Please Vote

2009-08-06T22:42:00.000-07:00

http://www.ikdn.gov.my/