Archive for the ‘Articles’ Category

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/breakingviews/article/whos-disrespecting-the-king-here-jacob-sinnathamby/

FEB 28 — Let’s get one thing straight. The Agong or any of the Malay Rulers may have a special position under the Constitution but they are not God.

For God-fearing Malaysians, only the Almighty is infallible. With that concept set out (for the benefit of Utusan Malaysia and its English cousin, The Star) I would like to address the current debate on whether Teoh Beng Hock’s family have disrespected the Agong by not being party to the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

Former judge Shaik Daud says the family has disrespected the institution. I don’t think so because it was always going to be possible for them to walk away from a commission hearing they did not institute (done by government) or agree with.

If we are to accept Shaik’s argument, should we also say that the governments of Abdullah Badawi and Najib Razak have disrespected the Agong because they did not implement fully findings of the royal commission on the police or the findings of the VK Lingam commission?

In fact, it seems to me that the Agong should be angry with the government because whenever they find themselves in a bind, they go for an RCI but are very lame-willed about implementation.

By doing so, they have made the RCI a laughing stock. In the Teoh case, the RCI is stocked with judges and government officials.

So I do wonder who is really disrespecting the Agong?

* Jacob Sinnathamby reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

Source: http://www.merdekareview.com/news/n/17219.html

【本刊特约刘德豪撰述】根据某些政治学者的看法,当国家从独裁政权或内战状态转移至民主政治或和平状态时,对过去发生的侵犯人权行为,执政政府以转型正义维持社会稳定与满足应报思想,并教育后代人民不至于重蹈覆辙,这是转型正义中的重要意义。

正如“台湾经验:政治命案与转型正义”电影分享会的主办当局所言,从白色恐怖到党外崛起,从政党轮替到威权复辟,观照台湾的历史经验,林宅血案、陈文成命案、江南命案代表民主之路所付出的奋斗,彰显了公义之路所需的耐心和坚忍,其平反与否考验民主国家的信仰和决心。
228事件代表了台湾的集体记忆,而马来西亚则是513事件。台湾处理转型正义的经验,对我国未来处理类似事件带来什么启示?
妥协式转型影响转型正义
曾于1992年至1999年留学政大的潘永强(右下图左)表示,在一些政治学者看来,台湾民主化或台湾政治转型是一种妥协式的民主转型,是不流血的、没经过革命的民主过程,而是政治菁英之间的妥协。
台湾的民主转型不像波兰等东欧国家般跟过去完全断裂,产生一个与过往历史截然不同的民主化,因此台湾民主化也叫分期付款式的民主。
他认为妥协式的转型会影响到以后转型正义的过程,“在野会跟在朝力量做出妥协让步,导致保守力量没有彻底退出政治舞台。不像南美或前苏联,共产党的力量必须完全退出政治。”
台湾自1990年修宪已经是民主化的起步,在民主化开始后,国民党依然掌握政权长达十年。潘永强认为,台湾近几年热烈讨论转型正义,是因为他们过去并没有处理转型正义,或者转型正义处理得不足。
308大选不算成功转型
“308大选后,我国国会也有声音提出转型正义的概念,本意是好的,但往往会忽略时间错置的问题。通常我们说转型正义是在政治成功转型以后,转型跟正义两者并存,缺一不可。”
潘永强指出,308大选并不算成功的转型,只不过是我国在野党取得比较好的选举成绩,原来威权政党的政治版图有所萎缩,整个社会的政经结构并没有重大改变,是我国民主化一个比较难得的契机而已,跟政治转型相差甚远。
另一方面,国内对转型正义的讨论,也仅仅把它当成价值概念来讨论。他认为要认真处理转型正义的话,还需要在职务操作或制度上的配合设计。
“我们有的可能只是个人转型,而非整个政经体制的转型,对整体结构而言,改变的部分非常少。”
迫害行为是制度性暴力
他促请众人反思转型正义中的正义是什么?这些迫害行为可能不是个人造成的,而是整个制度体系在做帮凶,是属于国家级的制度性暴力。
“即便真的政治转型后,正义未必会到来。社会要建立一个共识,追究过去的不当行为时,要有一个底线,清算要到什么范围或甚么程度,以及什么要暂时搁置。这个共识必须在转型正义开展前建立好,否则过度追讨可能会导致社会更多的决裂。”
他进一步分析,有的国家转型后民主很脆弱,可能独裁者又回来,因此需要运动的推展与民间的力量,我国虽然是半威权政治,但跟拉丁美洲东欧的高压统治仍有不同,因为我们仍具有民主参与的空间譬如定期的选举──尽管选举间有不公平的地方。
“虽然如此,有些政治迫害所造成的命案仍要迫切处理,譬如阿丹杜雅与赵明福案件。”
迫害者仍掌权冤案难翻
此外,他强调转型正义也要让政府对于政治异议分子的打压跟伤害进行补偿,譬如我国政府过度对共产党的镇压以及对内安法令扣留者或家属的伤害。
“转型正义更要处理不当党产或政治独裁者用不法手段取得的不当资产。合法的没问题,不当党产则牵涉到经济体系的公平正义问题,如果不去处理不当党产,相关政党还持续拥有的话,会造成以后政党不公平的竞争。”
他认为我国政治无法像某些东欧国家般跟过去彻底断绝,因此过去的加害者或独裁者可能还会继续留在我国政坛上,追究责任没有共识的话,可能会使得保守力量反扑。
“譬如陈文成命案与林义雄(林家)命案,尽管台湾经过两度政党轮替,但因为涉及者跟迫害者都还在政坛上,以致永远破不了案。”
席间,谈及台湾经验对“全民挺明福运动”运动的重要启示,陈亚才坦承,每个族群对不同议题会有不同感受,赵明福事件必须要将命案扩展至对我国腐败司法程序的检讨,才能在各族群间引来更多深切感受。
潘永强则悲观地表示,即使是政治转型到来,赵明福命案能不能破案也是个大问题,只要迫害者还掌握一定的政治势力,彻底去维护正义并不那么容易。

尽管如此,陈亚才仍提醒,若没有政治制度上的改变如政党轮替的大前提,就不会产生后来的转型正义。

Commission must be neutral

Posted: February 26, 2011 in Articles
Tags:

Source: http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F2%2F24%2Fcolumnists%2Fbravenewworld%2F8123508&sec=bravenewworld

To ensure that there is no conflict of interest, the conducting officers must be totally unbiased.

THE family of Teoh Beng Hock has decided that they do not want to take part in the Commission of Inquiry which was set up to investigate his death.

This act has been criticised by some quarters as being a political ploy designed to delay the proceedings. I beg to disagree.

The family has some very compelling reasons for doing what they did.

Seeking justice: Teoh’s family members waiting outside the courtroom in Kuala Lumpur recently. They want the High Court case to be settled first or dropped by the A-G before the inquiry continues.

Their main complaint is that there is currently an appeal in the courts regarding the findings of the inquest.

To refresh your memory, the inquest that was formed to investigate the cause of Teoh’s death concluded with an open verdict.

The magistrate was unable to come to a conclusion whether Teoh was killed or whether he committed suicide.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers has decided to appeal to the High Court.

They believe that the cause of death was suicide and they want a declaration from the court to that effect.

The family want this High Court case to either be settled first or dropped by the A-G before the CI continues.

This is a reasonable request for what happens if the CI comes up with one decision and the High Court another?

They are also unhappy that the conducting officers are from the A-G’s Chambers.

The conducting officers are the people with the responsibility of conducting the inquiry.

They organise proceedings, for example by drawing the witness list.

It is odd indeed that the people who are conducting the proceedings of the CI are from the very same body (the A-G’s Chambers) who are calling for a finding of suicide.

It would appear therefore, that there is clearly a conflict of interest here. They are working for the CI, which is supposed to be independent and neutral, yet they are also from an organisation that has made up their mind as to the cause of death.

I am not for one moment questioning the integrity of the individuals who make up the CI.

However, the CI must be impeccable in its neutrality and, more importantly, it must appear to be impeccable.

The way it stands, this neutrality can be cast in doubt.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that the A-G’s Chambers was involved in the initial investigation.

For example, the Investigating Officer revealed the so-called suicide note so late in the inquest proceedings because he was waiting for the green light from the Deputy Public Prosecutor (who is part of the A-G’s Chambers).

The DPP and thus the A-G’s Chambers had a supervisory role in the original investigation, so how can their staff play such a prominent role in the CI.

In order to ensure that there is no conflict of interest, the conducting officers must be totally unbiased.

If it means getting them from an independent source, so be it.

There is after all precedence for this.

In the Commission formed to investigate former Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s black eye incident, an independent party was chosen to lead the conducting officers.

The CI has to distance itself from any possibility of impropriety.

This was not done and thus casts doubts on the whole procedure.

This is the reason why the family and later the state of Selangor decided to pull out.

It is unfortunate that there are accusations that the family had done what it did under external pressure.

They have been through the mill for the past two years or so.

They have stated time and time again that all they want is justice.

It is perfectly within their right to withdraw, and it is perfectly understandable.

Getting Away with Murder in Malaysia

Posted: February 26, 2011 in Articles, News

Source: http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2116&Itemid=178

On July 16, according to the testimony of a Thai pathologist, Teoh Beng Hock, a 29-year-old aide to an opposition politician, was probably beaten during a marathon questioning session, sodomized, strangled unconscious, dragged to a window of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission in Kuala Lumpur and thrown to his death.

The country’s law enforcement establishment maintains that Teoh committed suicide by leaping from the MACC building after the inquiry was concluded into irregularities in his boss’s accounts. But it is far from the first “suicide” in custody and what happened to Teoh happens all too frequently when the luckless collide with the powerful in Malaysia. His real killers are unlikely ever to be identified. As many as 350 people have died in custody since 1990. The privileged are rarely brought to trial.

The most infamous recent case before Teoh’s is that of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a 28 year-old Mongolian translator who was murdered in 2006 by two bodyguards of then-Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. Altantuya had been jilted by Najib’s best friend, Abdul Razak Baginda, and was demanding money from him.

Although numerous witnesses and evidence connected Najib to the affair, he was never questioned or put on the witness stand, nor was his chief of staff, Musa Safri, who Baginda said in a cautioned statement he approached about getting Altantuya from ceasing her harrassment. His two bodyguards were convicted of the murder although one, in his confession, said the two men were to be paid RM100,000 to kill her. The court never asked who would pay the money. The confession wasn’t allowed in court. Baginda was acquitted without having to put on a defense and promptly left the country and Najib was eventually named Prime Minister.

Such questionable cases go back to at least the early 1980s when Sultan Mahmud Iskandar of Johor was dubbed the “killer king” by the British tabloids after he shot a trespasser to death on his property. He also reportedly assaulted and killed a golf caddy who was said to have laughed when the sultan missed a golf stroke and he maimed the caddy’s brother. He later was alleged to have assaulted and injured a hockey coach, kicking off a constitutional crisis that led to former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s removal of legal immunity from prosecution for all of Malaysia’s nine sultans, although Iskandar was never either arrested or jailed.

There are plenty more. In 1988 an attractive young woman named Mustakizah Jaafar, who owned a video rental business in Malacca, was found hacked to death by unknown assailants. Mustakizah reportedly was pregnant at the time of her death. She was believed to be having an affair with Megat Junid Megat Ayob, the onetime UMNO deputy home affairs minister, who died in January 2008 of cancer.

No one was ever charged with Mutakizah’s murder. The widespread gossip about Megat Junid’s connection with Mustakizah didn’t do his political career any harm. He was ultimately named Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister in 1997 although he lost his parliamentary seat two years later and retired from politics.

In 2002 the decomposed body of Haslezah Ishak, the attractive young second wife of Raja Jaafar Raja Muda Musa, second in line to the throne of Perak, whom he had met in a karaoke lounge, was found under a bridge, clad in a bra and jeans. Four men, including a palace aide, a bomoh or witch doctor, a fisherman and a carpenter were arrested and jailed for the murder. No one was ever arrested or questioned for hiring them to kill her although suspicion fell on the prince’s wife, Rajah Mahani, who had been publicly consulting witch doctors over her suspicion that Haslezah had put a spell on her husband.

In 2003, another attractive young woman, Norita Shamsudin, was found murdered in an apartment in a Kuala Lumpur suburb. A night club guest relations officer, Norita had been rumored to be having an affair with Shahidan Kassim, then chief minister of the state of Perlis. Although another individual was arrested and charged with the murder, he was later declared not guilty and no one else was ever charged. According to local news reports, the inspector general of police, Mohd Bakri Omar, classified the case under Malaysia’s Official Secrets Act and no details were ever released.

Earlier this year, authorities finally completed an inquest into the 2007 death of beautiful ethnic Indian actress Sujatha Krishnan, who also worked part-time as a secretary to S.Vell Paari, chief executive officer of Maika Holdings and the son of S. Samy Vellu, the head of the Malaysian Indian Congress, a component of the ruling national coalition. Sujatha died in a hospital in a Kuala Lumpur suburb of Klang three days after she had been rushed in for treatment. Her body was cremated almost immediately after her death. The coroner ruled she had died after poisoning herself by drinking poison. The family vainly requested an investigation into her death.

For those at the bottom end of Malaysia’s power spectrum, life can be considerably tougher if suspicion falls on them. According to the reform organization Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET), a distressing number of suspects have died in custody. “Relying merely on data provided by the government, it has been disclosed that there have been 150 deaths from 1990 until 2004 (10.7 per year), 108 deaths between 2000 and 2006 (18 per year), and, 85 deaths between 2003 and 2007 (21.25 per year),” the organization said.

According to a 2003 report by the Asian Human Rights Commission – the same year Norita was killed ‑ statistics released in Malaysia’s parliament in October of that year by the Home Ministry, showed 23 people died in police custody between 2002 and July 2003. Of those, 16 died in 2002 although according to the report, other figures indicated that 18 had died in custody in the first nine months of 2002 alone. Parliament was told in October 2002 that a total of 34 persons had died in police custody since 2000 ‑ six in 2000, 10 in 2001 and 18 from January to September 2002.

According to the report, then-Deputy Home Minister Chor Chee Heung denied that methods of torture used to obtain information from suspects led to their deaths. He claimed that the majority of deaths were the result of attempts to escape from police custody. Typical seemed to be the case of Hasrizal Hamzah, who had been detained on suspicion of murder in October of 2003. According to a senior assistant police commissioner, Harizal confessed to the murder and then, as he was being moved to a new location, supposedly shoved the accompanying policeman aside despite being handcuffed, and leapt over a balcony to his death.

Earlier this year, the Indian community was enraged by the death of a 22-year-old named Kugan Ananthan who was detained on Jan. 15 on suspicion of stealing luxury cars. He reportedly collapsed during questioning and died on Jan. 20 from “acute pulmonary edema,” or fluid in the lungs. However, after his body was released to his family, an autopsy found that he had suffered from internal bleeding in his heart, left lung, spleen, kidneys and scalp area. The soles of his feet had been beaten and the back of his neck and spine area were bleeding. His back was covered with contusions, beating marks and bruises. He had sustained more than 10 serious burn marks, probably as the result of being burned by a heated v-shaped iron bar. He had also been starved during the entire time he was being tortured, allegedly by as many as seven police officers, his family charged.

“There is a clear lack of supervision, medical care and concern for the general well-being and rights of suspects while under police remand,” the Human Rights Commission said in its 2003 report. It does not appear that anything has changed. The odds are that the cases involving both Kugan and Teoh will end up the same way scores of others have.

They lied

Posted: February 14, 2011 in Articles
Tags: , ,

By : Ng Yap Hwa

When i called the RCI secretary Datuk Saripuddin’s secretary, Rosnah in the afternoon of 7 Feb 2011, she said Saripuddin was in oversea, she said only Saripuddin knew everything about RCI, she has zero sense of the RCI.

When i called RCI PR officer Nani yesterday 8 Feb 2011 evening, she said Saripuddin was in oversea, she knew nothing, did not sure whether the RCI meeting would be held as scheduled.

But today – SARIPUDDIN TURNED OUT at Duta court! I only knew the RCI meeting would be held at 3pm at duta court from media friends!

Both RCI secretary office and PR officer lied. They wanted to keep us in dark, They do not want the public to know the RCI meeting will go on as usual — why so secret? What they were trying to hide?

The first day we dealt with RCI, we have already need to deal with liars, non-transparent administration.

Be ready for the dirty tricks, be vigilant, my friend.

2011.02.09

词曲唱:乱世修行,影片:独脚龙

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/155072

全民挺明福运动促请总检察长阿都甘尼马上澄清,是否真如赵明福家属律师哥宾星所言,致函沙亚南高庭要求宣判赵明福死于自杀,而首相纳吉更必须马上表态,是否认同这个立场及指示总检察署申请司法检讨,判赵明福自杀身亡。

全民挺明福今日发表文告,促请执政党领袖对总检察署的行动表态。

“这些国阵领袖之前全力支持纳吉成立皇委会调查死因,是否也认同总检察署上诉判明福案为自杀案?”

批纳吉政府施两手策略

全民挺明福认为,纳吉政府的两手策略,不但使寻找赵明福冤案真相的道路更为崎岖困难,也将让赵家继续饱受煎熬,承受无尽的悲痛和忧虑。

该组织强调,纳吉政府应展示诚意,还赵明福一个公道,给赵家一个真相,勿在伤口上撒盐,在赵明福案的调查中加入太多政治考量。

“纳吉政府必须紧记,赵家要求的是公正、专业和透明的调查。无论是验尸庭的判决陈词还是上诉高庭检讨验尸庭的信件,总检察署未曾公开让公众知道它的立场。”

炮轰总检察署黑箱作业

文告说,赵家律师哥宾星曾在纳吉宣布总检察署将上诉检讨验尸庭结果时,要求总检察署解释上诉的理由,总检察署完全没有回应,而昨天坚持上诉的副检察司祖基菲里阿末,也拒绝公开信件的内容。

“这种种黑箱作业、欠缺透明的作业的方式,难以令人信服,也剥夺了公众的知情权。”

全民挺明福促请纳吉解释,同时进行皇委会和高庭检讨的目的何在?社会各界不满法庭宣判明福案为悬案,因此冀望皇委会追查真凶,查明反贪污委员会的刑事责任;总检查署却反倒退要求翻案,判为自杀案件,无疑是开倒车之举,令人心寒。

指政府未展示查案诚意

文告说,政府两项互为矛盾之举令人质疑政府的公信力,也证实早前全民挺明福运动的担忧,即政府还未展示查明赵明福案件诚意,也暴露出执政党一片唱和的虚妄。

“两个宗旨互斥的调查不但使社会混淆,也显示政府有意采取种种拖延手法,令赵家、赵家律师和公民团体疲于奔命。若出现两个迥然不同的结果,更会打击寻求真相的努力。”

全民挺明福希望,这不是政府消耗民间正义资源的手段,也促请总检察署即刻撤销高庭的上诉申请,让皇委会展开独立公正的调查。

该组织认为,若证实总检察署在司法检讨中要求高庭判赵明福为自杀,这个预设立场将严重影响皇委会的形象和独立性,已不再适合担任皇委会执行官,应马上退出皇委会。

验尸庭暴露警方不专业

全民挺明福一再指出,验尸庭审讯暴露了警方查案的各种缺失与不专业,根本未尽力查明案件各种疑点。例如,死者颈项坠楼前伤势、反贪会口供不一、可疑字条留待一年多才呈堂、反贪会释放死者时间及物品并未还予当事人、坠楼事发时反贪会大厦神秘关闭一小时多等。

因此,全民挺明福重申,总检察长眼前的任务应该应该是援引《刑事程序法典》第339(2)条文所赋予的权力,指示警方重开档案查明赵明福命案疑点,而不是申请司法检讨,要求法院判赵明福为自杀。