Malaysian Bar welcomes proposal to give Judges discretion on death sentence

Press Release

Malaysian Bar welcomes proposal to give Judges discretion on death sentence
 

The Malaysian Bar welcomes the Honourable Attorney General’s recent announcement that the Attorney General’s Chambers (“AGC”) is considering proposing an amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 to give Judges the discretion not to impose the death sentence on drug couriers.  The AGC is reportedly also considering a proposal that those on death row be resentenced.

This is a positive first step towards realising the cross-party initiative, led by the Minister in charge of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, to end the use of the mandatory death penalty for drugs-related offences.  There is great wisdom in leaving the decision on punishment for such offences to the discretion of the Judiciary.

The next step must be a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, which must ultimately culminate in the abolition of the penalty, as the execution of human beings by the State serves as an “example of barbarity” to society and legitimises the taking of human life.

This goal will earn Malaysia a rightful place amongst modern and progressive democracies, as the worldwide trend has been to abolish the death penalty. 

Lim Chee Wee
President
Malaysian Bar

20 July 2012

SMSL TO LYNAS, NO APOLOGY!! (18/7/2012)

Press statement of Save Malaysia Stop Lynas (SMSL)

SMSL Will FIGHT Lynas Till The End

July 18, 2012

In a recent International Business Times (IBT) article, it was misreported that SMSL has apologised to the Lynas Corporation and has retracted a statement made about its rare earth refinery plant.  Accessed at http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/363755/20120717/malaysia-rare-earths.htm#.UAYv8dV0xVv

This news story is erroneous and factually incorrect because SMSL has made NO such apology or retraction.  SMSL is determined to and will continue to defend the rights of citizens to free speech, to campaign for a clean and safe future for our family and our country.

Mr Tan Bun Teet, the spokesperson for SMSL said, “I have written to the Editor of IBT to seek an immediate public apology and to correct the article.  The IBT journalist should have contacted SMSL about it before putting the story out.”

SMSL is committed to fighting Lynas until the end, including the Lynas defamation suit. It is the online news portal Free Malaysia Today (FMT) that has chosen to apologise to Lynas and retracted the so-claimed defamatory statement.  Its action has no bearing or any association with SMSL’s current or future direction on the Stop Lynas campaign.

“SMSL will take up the relevant legal action against the IBT if no apology is forthcoming by the end of today and if no retraction is made.  SMSL will also lodge a complaint with the Australian Journalists Association which is strict on journalistic ethics and professionalism.” Added Mr Tan.

“SMSL remained firmed on our stance and our statements about the Lynas rare earth plant because we have reliable information and relevant professional experts to back up our statements in court.” He asserted.

Towards this end, SMSL is highly appreciative of the strong spirit of solidarity and support demonstrated by civil society groups and concerned individuals all over Malaysia and overseas.  

The Lynas rare earth project is not just a Kuantan issue as it will affect the whole nation.  No one should tolerate a foreign company building a risky plant of the scale and size in a developing country with limited capacity to monitor, assess and managed.

The 12-year tax break granted to a project in exchange for a massive amount of hazardous and radioactive waste to contaminate Malaysia forever is a last straw on a camel's back for us.  This is the most ludicrous political decision the government has made.

Tax payers and citizens expect a Government to exercise its duty of care to ensure a nation's well beings and long-term future are secured not to subject citizens to the hazards of Lynas’ radiation and toxic waste.

SMSL and concerned citizens will converge at the Kuala Lumpur High court tomorrow 19^th July from 3.30pm onwards to await the court decision on Lynas’ defamation application.

“We welcome any concerned Malaysians to come along to show Lynas that we are a proud people with integrity and courage.  Join us in our fight against the risks and hazards of the world’s largest rare earth plant.”

For further comments, please contact SMSL hotline :+60 (0) 12-982 3302

Or Mr Tan Bun Teet, spokesperson for SMSL, Hp: +60 17 973 0576

BAR: Acquittal on charge of consensual sex between adults is in accord with evidence

Press Release: Acquittal on charge of consensual sex between adults is in accord with evidence

Monday, 09 January 2012 03:07pm

The Malaysian Bar welcomes the decision of the High Court in acquitting Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.  The principles of natural justice call for nothing less, in light of the grave concerns over whether the accused’s right to a fair trial was preserved.   Based on news reports of the trial, it is clear that the High Court decision is in accord with the evidence for, amongst others, the following reasons: (1) The lack of full disclosure: Both prior to and during the trial itself, the legal team for the defence was denied access to certain documents and physical evidence in the possession of the prosecution, which disadvantaged the accused in the preparation of his defence. (2) Unreliable DNA evidence: There were obvious concerns that the DNA sample submitted as evidence was unreliable or may have been compromised. (3) Certain unusual findings during the trial proceedings:  (a) The trial judge made an unprecedented finding at the end of the prosecution’s case that the complainant was a truthful and credible witness, without the benefit of having heard the defence. (b) While the court allowed the Prime Minister and his wife to be interviewed by the defence legal team, the subpoena issued by the defence compelling the attendance of the Prime Minister and his wife was set aside by the High Court upon the application of the prosecution.  The absence of curiosity in this regard casts grave concerns on the credibility of the complaint in the first place.  (4) The unrefuted relationship between the complainant and a member of the prosecution team, which raised serious questions whether the complainant had access to investigation papers, which would have enabled him to tailor his evidence at trial. The charge against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, which is based on an archaic provision of the Penal Code that criminalises consensual sexual relations between adults, should never have been brought.  The case has unnecessarily taken up judicial time and public funds.  The Malaysian Bar hopes that the Attorney General would not pursue any appeal, and will instead focus the valuable resources of the Attorney General’s Chambers on more serious crimes.   Lim Chee Wee President Malaysian Bar 9 January 2012

SUARAM: Government must Repeal the UUCA Now!

Press Statement: 10 January 2012

Government must Repeal the UUCA Now!

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) condemns the suspension of student activist Adam Adli by the University Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI). He has been suspended for three semesters, amounting to a total of 18 months over charges of damaging the reputation of Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI).

Adam’s disciplinary action was taken under the infamous Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA) in reaction towards his act of lowering a flag bearing Prime Minister Najib Razak’s portrait to replace it with a flag which bears the words “Academic Freedom”. The UUCA restricts students from participating or getting involved in any political or human rights related activities. SUARAM views that the suspension of Adam Adli is a violation of freedom of expression and is politically motivated with the intention to use his case to serve as a warning for other students who may be involved or intend to get involved in the academic freedom movement. The incident reflects on the lack of freedom and independence by the students in expressing their view without prejudice and fear.

SUARAM views this development as a serious concern to the development of human rights in Malaysia. The recommendation to suspend Adam reflects the practice of selective punishment on university campuses. There is a double standard which insists that one can protest to support the university to take action against Adam but one cannot voice disagreement on university policies or to defend academic freedom in the campus. This gross injustice undermines the fundamental values of academic freedom, critical thinking, and freedom from discrimination, all of which are presumably the hallmark of higher learning and democratic society.

SUARAM calls upon the Chancellor of UPSI to withdraw this unjust decision and to restore the integrity of the academy. The Chancellor of UPSI should be mindful that this decision will establish the university’s reputation as the university that silences dissent and represses student activism. We also call for an end to the continued harassment, threats and intimidation against student activists, which became apparent after a recent student-led protest.

We also urge the government to repeal the UUCA and recognise students’ right to participate in the democratic processes and any right guaranteed to all under the Malaysian Constitution.

Released by,

Nalini.E

Program Manager

SUARAM

Background

On 17 December 2011, Adam Adli a second-year student at Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) had lowered a flag bearing Prime Minister Najib Razak’s portrait to replace it with a flag which bears the words “Academic Freedom”. Reports stated that the protest flag was raised for five minutes, taken down and the flag with the PM's face was raised again. Many UMNO supporters denounced the action, targeting their fierce criticism at Adam. Since then, Adam has been attacked and threatened by some group of individuals via SMS, phone calls and videos.

On 19 December 2011, Adam lodged a police report at the Bukit Aman police headquarters with regards to the said harassment including threats to his personal safety. After speaking to police officials about the harassment, he held a press conference at the entrance to the Bukit Aman headquarters. A minor scuffle broke out, during which an unidentified man who later introduced himself to be Ruslan Mokhtar, tried to punch Adam. Adam suspected that the assailant was a plainclothes policeman who was present when Adam met with the police officers earlier. He also noted that none of the uniformed personnel tried to break the scuffle.

He lodged a report with the Tun HS Lee police station in regard to the scuffle as well as the harassment he and his family in Penang are facing.

On 9 January 2012, he was suspended for 18 months by the university administration.

 

Bar : Students free to think and speak(1/11/2011)

---

Press Release

 

Students free to think and speak

The Malaysian Bar welcomes yesterday’s majority decision of the Court of Appeal striking down section 15(5)(a) of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (“UUCA”) as unconstitutional.

The decision is a victory for freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in Article 10(1)(a) of our Federal Constitution.  In a country that over the years has seen the gradual erosion of fundamental liberties by legislative, executive and judicial action, the Malaysian Bar commends Justice Dato’ Mohd Hishamudin b Haji Mohd Yunus and Justice Datuk Linton Albert for their courageous and progressive stand in giving meaning to Article 10(1)(a) and taking a step forward in restoring our lost liberties.

Section 15(5)(a) of the UUCA has long prevented public university students of all ages from being actively involved in a significant aspect of the democratic process.  It has prevented these Malaysians from expressing their views or doing anything that may reasonably be construed as expressing support for, or sympathy with, or opposition to, political parties.  Section 15(5)(b) and Section 15(5)(c) of the UUCA prevent the same in respect of unlawful organisations or organisations that the Minister specifies as being unsuitable to the interests and well-being of the students or the university. 

In the past, the wide and repressive scope of section 15(5), in particular section 15(5)(a), has inexplicably been publicly justified on the grounds of the need to maintain public order and morality. Generations of Malaysian public university students have thus been unduly shackled, and our democracy has been the poorer for the loss of their voices in the public sphere. 

Universities – as with all institutions of higher learning – must embrace and espouse, as one of their primary duties, the development of critical thinking by their students and the encouragement of robust debate.  This is vital to ensure a continuous stream of thinking Malaysians who are able to advance and build our nation. 

The Malaysian Bar is also heartened by the courage and determination of the four young Malaysians: Muhammad Hilman b Idham, Woon King Chai, Muhammad Ismail b Aminuddin and Azlin Shafina bt Mohamad Adza, in insisting on their rights to freedom of speech and expression under the Federal Constitution.

The Malaysian Bar notes that section 15 of the UUCA does not merely seek to deprive a section of Malaysians of their freedom of speech and expression; it also denies them, in section 15(1) of the UUCA, of their fundamental right of freedom of association.  We call upon the authorities to accept the principles underlying the decision of the Court of Appeal, and to therefore repeal sections 15(1), 15(5)(b) and 15(5)(c) of the UUCA. 

Christopher Leong

Vice-President

Malaysian Bar

1 Nov 2011

SUARAM: Human Rights are Fundamental Principle of Humanity and Human Protection.

Press Statement: 1 November 2011

Human Rights are Fundamental Principle of Humanity and Human Protection.

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) criticise the latest statement issued by academicians Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, who said that the Human rights movement will undermine the sanctity of Islam. SUARAM is of the view that the statement made is incorrect and misleading the public on the understanding of human rights in Malaysia.

SUARAM believes in the principles of human rights as the central principle in a democracy and development of human dignity. It is consistent with the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that reaffirmed fundamental human rights, as in the inherent dignity and worth of the human person and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

SUARAM also would like to emphasise that the principles of human rights is not in contest or inconsistent with Islam as the fundamental principles of human rights were strongly stated in its principle statements with reference to social justice and fundamental freedom. Mr Ridhuan Tee is reminded that the key events in the history of Islam as in the freedom of Bilal who was a slave and the Hijrah of the prophet from Mekah to Madinah shall be in today's context be understood as freedom from slavery and rights to seek refuge.

SUARAM also states that the promotion and protection of human rights is fundamental to ensure the life and livelihood of human remain protected and respected to avoid another crisis of humanity as we have witnessed during the World War 2 where millions of life were perished and left to life in famine and hunger.

The protection and promotion of human rights have always been to protect hence the statement made by Mr Tee is regretted as it goes to suggest that human rights principles as a negative principle and alien to human lives. SUARAM would like to remind that the position taken is a simplified and uninformed position made in absolute ignorance and understanding of human rights.

His statement is purely a politically motivated attempt to derail the growing support by Malaysian on human rights in Malaysia and to support the notion put forward by former IGP Rahim Noor and Tun Mahathir who were known proponents against human rights and authoritarianism. The current positioning is an attempt to further launch the country into the dark ages of authoritarianism and iron fist rule and to re-establish the culture of fear that have undermined our democratic practices and public participation in Malaysia .

SUARAM as a human rights organisation will continue to oppose any laws or policies that are against the fundamental rights envisaged in the UDHR. We will continue to stand for the protection of human dignity and human lives and we would like to invite Mr Tee for a dialogue with SUARAM to foster better understanding of human rights and its principles.

Released By,

Nalini.E
Program Manager
SUARAM

 

Lawyers For Liberty: Court of Appeal Landmark Ruling on UUCA Breaks Free Another Chain of Repression of Freedom Movement

LFL :  Court of Appeal Landmark Ruling on UUCA Breaks Free Another Chain of Repression of Freedom Movement

The Court of Appeal today ruled that section 15(5)(a) of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA) is in breach of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

Section 15(5)(a) of UUCA prohibits students from expressing their support, sympathy or opposition to any political party and in breach of this section, universities have the power to take disciplinary action against the students.

Lawyers For Liberty applauds the decisiveness of the Court of Appeal ruling in upholding the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression against the prohibition under section 15(5)(a) which impedes students’ participation in political activities.

This ruling reaffirms the right to political participation which is crystalized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which have been the cornerstone of the constitutional provisions in many countries.

The right to political participation is central to the practice of democracy. It is pivotal to note that the right to political participation is to be enjoyed without discrimination.

The Court of Appeal ruling is timely following the recent suspension of Law Professor Abdul Aziz Bari which is clearly in violation of academic freedom, free speech and expression.

UUCA was deliberately amended in 1975 to restrict the student movement in political activities following the infamous Baling Demonstration which witnessed 30,000 people including students standing up for the poor farmers in Kedah, demanding  fair rubber prices and better living conditions.

This unprecedented decision by the Court of Appeal underscores the most significant aspect of the duty of the court as the final bastion of justice to warn the government against continuing repressive action which is an affront to constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression.

Fadiah Nadwa Fikri

Lawyers For Liberty

31 October 2011