mysinchew: Welcome to Malaysia — by David D. Mathew

Welcome to Malaysia — David D. Mathew

July 28, 2011

JULY 28 — Malaysia receives thousands of visitors every day. Some come looking for jobs while others are travellers yearning to enjoy our sunny beaches and delicious food.

But this article is not about jobseekers or tourists.

It is about two men.

About a month ago, Malaysia welcomed someone from a country formerly known as Rhodesia. He was treated very well and afforded all the luxuries and hospitality Wisma Putra could possibly provide.

This man, who so easily entered Malaysia, has a European Union travel ban against his name.

When this man appeared at a food summit in Rome in 2008, Mark Malloch Brown, the British Foreign Office minister for Africa, Asia and the UN, commented that this was “like Pol Pot going to a human rights conference.”

The Australian foreign minister, Stephen Smith, said that the man’s attendance at the food summit was obscene because “this is a person who has presided over the starvation of his people.”

In 2006, the African Union’s Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights released a report which expressed concern over “the continuing violations and the deterioration of the human rights situation” and “the number of internally displaced persons and the violations of fundamental individual and collective rights resulting from the forced evictions” that was being carried out by the government led by this man.

Three years ago the Queen of England stripped this man of his honorary knighthood which was awarded to him in 1994.

Without mincing his words, a British Foreign Office spokesman said that the action had been taken “as a mark of revulsion at the abuse of human rights and abject disregard for the democratic process” in the country over which this man presided.

The man being referred to is Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe. He visited Malaysia last month to attend the Ninth Langkawi International Dialogue as an invitee of the government.

Much of the world chides him. Thousands of his people have died of starvation because of his policies. Hundreds of his political opponents have been savagely beaten and tortured by the state.

Yet, Malaysia welcomes him.

Last week, the former general secretary of the International Federation for Human Rights visited Malaysia.

This man has been very active in initiating legal proceedings in France against former Serbian or Rwandan leaders suspected of crimes against humanity and crimes of war.

He acts for Franco-Chilean families who were victims of the former dictator Augusto Pinochet. He also defends several French prisoners detained in Guantanamo.

The man also founded Sherpa, a non-profit organisation dedicated to protecting and defending victims of economic crimes.

In 2009, Sherpa along with other non-profit organisations lodged a complaint in France against Dalhoff, Larsen and Horneman (DLH), one of the world’s leading international timber wholesalers.

It is alleged that during the civil war in Liberia from 2000-2003, DLH brought timber from Liberian companies that provided support to Charles Taylor’s brutal regime.

According to the claimants, by importing timber from forest concessions operated by corrupt Liberian companies, the French arm of DLH is guilty of handling and profiting from goods obtained illegally which is punishable under French criminal law.

The man being referred to is French human rights lawyer William Bourdon.

He arrived in Malaysia last week at the invitation of local human rights group Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) to attend three fund-raising dinners. After the first dinner in Penang, Bourdon was detained by the authorities on his return to Kuala Lumpur and then unceremoniously deported.

Bourdon is in fact engaged by Suaram to represent them in a case pending at the French courts concerning alleged financial kickbacks received by top government officials both in France and Malaysia over the purchase of the Scorpene submarines.

The Mugabe and Bourdon incidents raise grave concerns about the Malaysian foreign and immigration policies.

How can it be possible that we welcome an undisputed, evil despot but kick out a human rights campaigner who at the end of the day is merely advocating the stand of a local organisation trying to have their day in the French courts?

I guess it all comes back to something I have written about before.

We don’t like it when it is about us.

March and rally all you like if it is against Israel or America. But it is not all right to march when it concerns local issues like free and fair elections.

Welcome to Malaysia if you don’t criticise us, doesn’t matter about what you do elsewhere.

Get out if you are here to talk about the possible shortcomings of those in government.

Only time will tell if Bourdon and Suaram succeed in proving their case. But one thing is for sure. Robert Mugabe is no hero and if there is one person in this world who does not deserve to enter this land, it would be him. — mysinchew.com

THE BAR COUNCIL’S STATEMENT ON THE REPORT OF THE RCI INTO THE DEATH OF TEOH BENG HOCK

 by KOMUNITIKINI on 25 Jul, 2011

There are a number of key points on which the Malaysian Bar agrees with the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Death of Teoh Beng Hock (“RCI”).

We concur with the following findings of the RCI:

(1)    That the RCI was unable to accept that the alleged suicide note had been written by Teoh Beng Hock, and that the undue delay by the authorities in tendering the alleged suicide note at the first available opportunity could not be taken as mere carelessness or neglect, and therefore the authenticity of the note could not be trusted;

(2)    That Teoh Beng Hock was, at all material times until his untimely death, in the care, custody and control of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”) officers;

(3)    That Teoh Beng Hock was not released from the care, custody and control of the MACC officers after his statement had been recorded at approximately 3:30 am, and this failure “amounted to cruel conduct and punishment inflicted on purpose”;

(4)    That Teoh Beng Hock was subjected to “aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation” and that the recording of his statement was unlawful;

(5)    That the majority of the MACC officers exhibited a “total lack of consideration for human sensitivities”, and that the recruitment process of MACC officers should include a “psychological evaluation to assess their suitability for investigative work”;

(6)    That most of the MACC officers who were involved in the operations on 15 and 16 July 2009, and who gave evidence as witnesses, were neither truthful nor credible, as they “had the inevitable habit of lying”;

(7)    That massive operations launched by MACC Selangor – which were headed by then-Selangor MACC deputy director Hishamuddin Hashim – against the Pakatan Rakyat members of the Selangor state assembly were grounded on mere belief of information purportedly received over the telephone, and without proper ground work or verification;

(8)    That Hishamuddin Hashim was “arrogant, given to falsehoods, untruthful and uncompromising”, and that he was “just too stubborn [such trait was also displayed when he gave evidence before us] to retreat from his mistake in mounting such a massive operation”;

(9)    That not only was Hishamuddin Hashim involved but he also “unleashed his officers to do his bidding in order to get results within that night and morning come hell or high-water”, and that Hishamuddin Hashim should be held responsible for the actions taken by him and his officers that led to Teoh Beng Hock’s death; and

(10)    That the Selangor MACC had shown an extreme lack of cooperation with the police in the latter’s attempts to investigate complaints of assault and other offences previously made against its officers.

The Malaysian Bar, however, does not concur with the finding by the RCI that Teoh Beng Hock had committed suicide.  Such a finding, in our view, is unsupported by the facts and the evidence.

Contrary to the statement made by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, forensic psychiatrist Professor Paul Mullen did not testify that Teoh Beng Hock had a “weak character” that had led to him taking his own life.  Professor Mullen also did not conclude that Teoh Beng Hock had committed suicide; rather, his testimony stated that “in [his] opinion, what we learned of Teoh Beng Hock’s personality and behaviour do not suggest any increased risk of suicide”.  He further opined that the context of the events that had taken place was not one “which, in [his] experience, leads to suicide in custody”, as he had not been made aware of anything “to explain panic and distress sufficient to drive [Teoh Beng Hock] to conclude his honor had been irreparably tarnished”.

This is in stark contrast to what the Minister reportedly stated during the release of the RCI’s report, namely that Teoh Beng Hock had “truly committed suicide based on his character that had changed from a low-risk group to a high-risk group for suicide after undergoing a continuous and aggressive questioning session”.  Professor Mullen’s testimony does not provide the basis for the RCI’s finding of suicide, such as that described in the section titled “conclusion on forensic psychiatric aspects” in the RCI’s report.

It is noted that the RCI found the following:

(1)    That the time of death had been between 7:15 am and 11:15 am on 16 July 2009;

(2)    That Teoh Beng Hock had not been released at 3:30 am and been left alone sitting on a sofa after his statement had been recorded, as Hishamuddin Hashim had issued a written circular the previous month that “witnesses and visitors in the Selangor MACC office should be accompanied at all times”;

(3)    That Teoh Beng Hock had been subjected to a fourth interrogation session after 3:30 am by Hishamuddin Hashim and his officers, which was aggressive and relentless.  In addition, the RCI rejected the evidence of MACC officer Raymond Nion that he had seen Teoh Beng Hock lying down unattended on a sofa at approximately 6:00 am;

(4)    That the fourth interrogation session was probably between 3:30 am and 7:00 am; and

(5)    That the window from which Teoh Beng Hock is said to have fallen out was located conspicuously.

In view of the above, and that there was no evidence whatsoever produced at the RCI hearing of Teoh Beng Hock’s whereabouts or movements after 6:15 am, and the staff of the Selangor MACC office would have begun arriving by 8:00 am, to surmise that Teoh Beng Hock had committed suicide between 7:15 am and 11:15 am requires a leap in logic and an assumption of facts not in evidence.

The Malaysian Bar also notes that the joint expert psychiatric report of Dr Badiah Yahya and Dr Nor Hayati Ali – the experts engaged by MACC who were present during most of the court proceedings and had interviewed Teoh Beng Hock’s family members, housemate and work colleagues – stated:

We did not have any evidence on how the investigation was conducted as there were “no written questions posted to [Teoh Beng Hock]” or audio recording as to ascertain the amount of pressure that he experienced.  It is not known whether he had experienced in his mind the effects of being possibly prosecuted on the allegations, whether it would have been devastating for him and/or his organisation.  This should require more information on what was said and done in the period taken [sic] into custody until he was found dead.

It is very clear to the Malaysian Bar that full responsibility for Teoh Beng Hock’s death lies squarely and solely on the MACC, and that immediate action must be taken to hold the culpable officers accountable for their behaviour.  In this regard, we welcome the reported statement by Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, that “appropriate action would be taken against the officers through the process of law without delay”.  The authorities should investigate the relevant MACC officers for possible offences under sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code, namely for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for causing the death of TBH by negligence, respectively.

The Malaysian Bar also calls on the Government of Malaysia and MACC to consider:

• offering an unqualified written apology to Teoh Beng Hock’s family, and to the citizens of Malaysia, for his death; and
• making reasonable recompense to Teoh Beng Hock’s family in respect of his death.

The Malaysian Bar extends its heartfelt sympathy once again to Teoh Beng Hock’s family and loved ones.

Lim Chee Wee
President
Malaysian Bar

fmt: Lawasia says Govt disdains human rights.... by Patrick Lee

‘Govt disdains human rights’

Patrick Lee

 | July 27, 2011

In Malaysia, political survival is more important than human rights, according to an international lawyer's group.

PETALING JAYA: Malaysia’s heavy-handed crackdown on Bersih 2.0 (Coalition for Free and Fair Elections) indicates its disdain for human rights, an international lawyers’ group said.

Lawasia president Lester Huang condemned the arrests surrounding the July 9 rally and alleged that there was police brutality on the day itself.

“It defies any understanding that any government which claims to support the democratic process can maintain credibility among voters,” he said in a press statement.

Huang said that the government of the day appeared to make political survival a priority instead of adhering to the country’s “democratic principles”.

He pointed out that the authorities appeared to adopt “haphazard” crowd control methods, which included an “indiscriminate” use of tear gas and water cannons.

Malaysia, Huang added, did not seem to follow the “United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials”, which it adopted in 1990

Police were alleged to have fired tear gas canisters directly into crowds of protesters during the July 9 rally in Kuala Lumpur.

There also appeared to be little restraint employed by the authorities in dispersing Bersih supporters on that day.

In one instance, the Tung Shin Maternity Hospital was targeted by water cannons, with tear gas trailing into the compound.

The police have, however, defended their seemingly aggressive position on that day, attributing it to standard operating procedure.

Huang, however, did not appear to be convinced, and noted the continued harassment by the authorities, particularly against people wearing Bersih T-shirts.

He said that Malaysia needed to be more mindful over the rights of its citizens, and had to take its regional role more seriously.

“It is of profound regret to the regional legal community that the reaction to the Bersih movement sees these principles cast aside.”

“Actions of this sort in any country will always deserve the strongest criticism from the legal community on both legal and humanitarian grounds,” Huang said, adding that Malaysia’s membership on the United Nations Human Rights Council was called into question.

TMI: What Malaysians want — by John Teo

What Malaysians want —               by John Teo

July 26, 2011

JULY 26 — Prime Minister Najib Razak has asked the silent majority to speak up.

I belong to the silent majority and here is a wish list of what Malaysians want. We want to live in a country that is peaceful, prosperous and progressive.

We want a government that truly cares for the people rather than just paying lip service to the people. We want a government that launches projects for the people’s benefit rather than mega projects that benefit a few elite groups or do it to score political points.

We want a government that truly believes in the maintenance of quality in our education system as well as a human workforce that is at par with the rest of the world rather than shut our doors, producing wholesale a poor quality workforce and education system and proudly proclaiming to the world we are the “best”.

We want a government that is transparent and accountable in its implementation of policies rather hide behind layers of bureaucracy and pass the buck around when something goes wrong. We want to pay our taxes with pride and to feel that we are contributing to our nation’s prosperity and progressiveness rather than to see our hard-earned taxes being squandered in multimillion-dollar scandal after scandal.

We want to feel in control of our own destiny and have the government truly engage the stakeholders and listen to the stakeholders rather than form policies and shoved them down our throats. We want our politicians to truly work for the people’s benefit rather than engage in useless mudslinging and creating discord to score political mileage.

We want our politicians to be humble in the way they conduct official duties and the way they live rather than be escorted by police outriders, garlanded and seated in reserved VIP seats as if the people, who voted for them and put them where they are, are made to be seen as inferior human beings.

We want our politicians to lead a moderate lifestyle rather than live in million-dollar plush mansions, chauffeured around in luxury cars and drabbed in priceless jewellery while the people are struggling to make ends meet and worrying endlessly on making sure their children get a decent quality education.

We want to live in a country that embraces talent and hard work rather than political connections.

Last but not least, we want to be proud to call ourselves Malaysians, embracing our diversity and celebrating our differences rather than be bombarded by individuals trying to tear apart the fabric of our uniqueness. Is that too much to ask?

* John Teo reads The Malaysian Insider.

Rule of law, rule by law — by Ambiga Sreenevasan

Rule of law, rule by law — Ambiga Sreenevasan

July 23, 2011

JULY 23 — Good Morning! Chancellor, vice chancellor and graduating students.

It is so good to be back!

I am deeply moved by the conferment of this honour upon me. That it comes from my alma mater is especially significant for me. That it comes at this time is almost providential, for it allows me and all lawyers to reflect on our roles in the societies we live in.

For this honour and this moment of reflection, I extend my grateful thanks to the Council and Senate of the University of Exeter.

Tired of injustice and oppression, people the world over are crying out for truth, goodness, justice and universal love and understanding.

The events in Malaysia over the past six weeks culminating in the rally for free and fair elections on the 9th of July, has taught me so much more than I could have ever learned in the last 30 years as a practising lawyer.

My team and I faced first-hand the full force of the unleashed power of the state, and I realised then the importance of the independence of the Institutions of government, particularly the judiciary, to check such abuses of power.

I also realised how real and present the absence of the Rule of Law can be.

In countries where the Rule of Law reigns strong and true one probably does not even talk about it. But in countries that veer towards Rule by Law, talking about getting back to the basics is crucial.

In many countries, Rule by Law is reflected in the existence of repressive laws that violate the fundamental rights of its citizens. One example of this is preventive detention laws that lock people away without affording them the basic right to a trial. There are many examples of such oppressive laws worldwide and they are not confined to underdeveloped or developing countries.

As lawyers, we are in a unique position. Our years of legal study and practice teach us to see and appreciate the fundamental role that the Rule of Law plays in guaranteeing that the state governs its citizens in a just and democratic manner.

Who better to remind those in power of their responsibilities to their citizens than lawyers trained in understanding the difference between “Rule of Law” and “Rule by Law”?

Our role as lawyers must therefore extend far beyond traditional legal practice.

Here, I make no reference to rules, guidelines, documents, or declarations. My only reference point is our conscience. Can we as lawyers, ever sit back and watch the erosion of fundamental liberties of the people around us and do nothing? Clearly, silence in these circumstances, is not an option.

When I graduated from this university about 30 years ago, things were of course very different. Today the Internet and social media has empowered people with a continual flow of unfiltered and up-to-date information. No longer can the manipulation and control of information be effectively used by those in power to suppress either thought or action.

You are in a world where you know instantly of injustices taking place in any part of it. In this global village drawn together by so many factors, we are one. We can reach out to each other using these new means of communication and we owe it to each other to stand together for what is right.

You may say, “But I studied law to be a solicitor or barrister and to earn money for a decent standard of living”. There is nothing wrong with that, I assure you. I run a commercial litigation practice in a partnership of four where we also do public interest litigation. The two can co-exist quite comfortably.

The point I make is this.

You are graduating from one of the best universities in the country if not on the planet! You are special. And you are now a proud member of an army of people that is equipped with all that is necessary to both practise law and to fight injustice.

I urge you to use this arsenal of knowledge and your passion for justice to fight for those who are downtrodden.

You have already heard of the events of July 9th in Malaysia. Whilst it brought out the worst in some, it brought out the best in others and this is where our hope lies.

There were some in government who opposed the methods used to shut us down. Even doctors left their comfort zones to speak up against injustices. And of course there were the lawyers and the independent media who stood on the side of truth and justice.

However, the real heroes of that day are our friend and supporter Allahyarham Baharuddin Ahmad who paid the ultimate price in fighting a noble cause, the six members of the Socialist Party of Malaysia who, as we speak, sit in solitary confinement under preventive detention laws and finally the brave people of Malaysia who overcame their fear of intimidation and harassment to uphold their fundamental rights.

With all my heart I dedicate this honour you have bestowed upon me to them.

* This was the acceptance speech delivered by Datuk Dr Ambiga Sreenevasan upon her conferment with the Honorary Doctorate Of Laws, University of Exeter.

fmt: Bar Council: Suicide finding is ‘a leap in logic’ by Teoh El Sen

Bar Council: Suicide finding is ‘a leap in logic’

Teoh El Sen

 | July 23, 2011

The Malaysian Bar says the RCI's finding that Teoh Beng Hock had committed suicide was "unsupported by the facts and evidence".

KUALA LUMPUR: The Bar Council has rejected the suicide finding of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Teoh Beng Hock’s death, saying that the conclusion was “unsupported by the facts and evidence”.

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee also urged the government as well as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to apologise to Teoh’s family and the citizens of Malaysia, over his death; and compensate Teoh’s family over their loss.

“It is very clear to the Malaysian Bar that full responsibility for Teoh Beng Hock’s death lies squarely and solely on the MACC, and that immediate action must be taken to hold the culpable officers accountable for their behaviour,” said Lim.

He said the Bar welcomed the statement by Minister in Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz that “appropriate action would be taken against the officers through the process of law without delay”.

Lim said the authorities should investigate the relevant officers for possible offences under sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code, namely for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for causing the death of TBH by negligence, respectively.

However, Lim said that Nazri had erred when he quoted forensic psychiatrist Professor Paul Mullen
to support the fact that Teoh had a “weak character”.

“Contrary to the statement made by Nazri, Mullen did not testify that Teoh had a ‘weak character’ that led him to take his own life. He did not conclude that Teoh had committed suicide,” said Lim.

Rather, Lim said, Mullen’s testimony stated:“in [his] opinion, what we learned of Teoh Beng Hock’s personality and behaviour do not suggest any increased risk of suicide”.

“He (Mullen) further opined that the context of the events that had taken place was not one ‘which, in [his] experience, leads to suicide in custody’, as he had not been made aware of anything ‘to explain panic and distress sufficient to drive [Teoh Beng Hock] to conclude his honor had been irreparably tarnished’,” said Lim.

Lim said this was in stark contrast to what Nazri had stated during the release of the report as Mullen’s testimony in fact did not provide the basis for a finding of suicide.

Leap in logic
The Bar Council noted the RCI findings were the following:

• That the time of death had been between 7:15 am and 11:15 am on July, 16, 2009;

• That Teoh Beng Hock had not been released at 3:30 am and been left alone sitting on a sofa after his statement had been recorded;

• That Teoh Beng Hock had been subjected to a fourth interrogation session after 3:30 am by Hishamuddin Hashim and his officers, which was aggressive and relentless. In addition, the RCI rejected the evidence of MACC officer Raymond Nion that he had seen Teoh Beng Hock lying down unattended on a sofa at approximately 6am;

• That the fourth interrogation session was probably between 3am and 7am; and

• That the window from which Teoh Beng Hock is said to have fallen out was located conspicuously.

Lim said in view of the above, and as there were no evidence whatsoever produced at the RCI hearing of Teoh’s whereabouts or movements after 6:15am, and that the MACC staff would have begun arriving by 8:00 am, “to surmise that Teoh had committed suicide between 7:15am and 11:15am requires a leap in logic and an assumption of facts not in evidence”.

Lim also noted that the the other joint expert psychiatric report tendered during the RCI by Dr Badiah Yahya and Dr Nor Hayati Ali (who were engaged by MACC and present during most of the court proceedings and had interviewed Teoh Beng Hock’s family members, housemate and work colleagues) also said there was lack of information on whether Teoh had suffered any strenuous mental strain from an interrogation.

Not truthful or credible
However, Lim said there were a number of key points on which the Bar agreed with the report of the the RCI, which included:

• That the RCI was unable to accept that the alleged suicide note had been written by Teoh Beng Hock, and that the undue delay by the authorities in tendering the alleged suicide note at the first available opportunity could not be taken as mere carelessness or neglect, and therefore the authenticity of the note could not be trusted;

• That Teoh Beng Hock was, at all material times until his untimely death, in the care, custody and control of MACC officers;

• That Teoh Beng Hock was subjected to “aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation” and that the recording of his statement was unlawful;

• That the majority of the MACC officers exhibited a “total lack of consideration for human sensitivities”, and that the recruitment process of MACC officers should include a “psychological evaluation to assess their suitability for investigative work”;

• That most of the MACC officers who were involved in the operations on July 15 and July 16, 2009, and who gave evidence as witnesses, were neither truthful nor credible, as they “had the inevitable habit of lying”;

• That massive operations launched by MACC Selangor – which were headed by then-Selangor MACC deputy director Hishamuddin Hashim – against the Pakatan Rakyat members of the Selangor state assembly were grounded on mere belief of information purportedly received over the telephone, and without proper ground work or verification;

• That Hishamuddin Hashim was “arrogant, given to falsehoods, untruthful and uncompromising”, and that he was “just too stubborn [such trait was also displayed when he gave evidence before us] to retreat from his mistake in mounting such a massive operation”;