POLICE MUST RESPECT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS – SUHAKAM

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (the commission) expresses its support for The Society for the Promotion of Human Rights (Proham)’s press release entitled “Royal Police Commission Findings: Ten Years On (April 29-2005 & 2015)” and calls on the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) to strive to act with courage, composure, tolerance, impartiality and with respect for the constitutional rights of all at all times.

The Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police (Royal Commission) was established in 2004 in response to “widespread concerns regarding the high incidence of crime, perception of corruption in the PDRM, general dissatisfaction with the conduct and performance of police personnel, and a desire to see improvements in the service provided by the police”.

Among the most significant of the 125 recommendations in the 2005 Royal Commission report was the proposal to establish an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), independent of the PDRM with the mandate, amongst others, to receive and investigate into complaints of alleged misconduct by the police force.

The report of the Royal Commission further identified that there were high instances of deaths in police custody. In its annual reports, the commission noted that there were 20 deaths in police custody in 2013 and at least 10 in 2014 based on the commission’s observations. To date, complaints involving alleged disproportionate use of force by the police, abuse of power and delays in acting on reports lodged are among the highest number of complaints received by the commission.

In response, the commission in 2011 and 2012 recommended that the police conduct initial investigations before making an arrest. and that arrests should only be made when there is reasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offence, or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent a person from committing an offence or from feeling.

The commission also has over the years outlined many recommendations to the PDRM, as contained in its public inquiry reports of 2001, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011 and 2013. The commission wishes to reiterate several of its key recommendations for the immediate consideration of the PDRM:

– There is need for the PDRM to facilitate peaceful assemblies as envisaged under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 by ensuring crowd and traffic management and control, as well as minimising disruptions to the public and activities in the places concerned.

These can be realised through meetings with the organisers as well as ongoing training and workshops on crowd management and control in line with international standards.

– There is a need for the police to make the distinction between a peaceful assembly and a riot as well as to maintain its neutrality in protecting the safety of participants and members of public in the event of public assemblies involving two or more opposing groups in the same area.

– The authorities must undertake to immediately inform the next-of-kin in cases of deaths in custody the essential information, including date, time and place of the post-mortem examination, the right to be represented by a legally qualified medical practitioner or a legal practitioner or a medical practitioner during the post-mortem examination, right of family members to have a second post-mortem examination and a thorough explanation, in layman’s language of the findings of the post-mortem examination.

– The commission also stresses that while preventive detention laws have been re-enacted, the PDRM shall refrain from detaining individuals without charge as such practices not only violate human rights principles, but can have a devastating impact on the investigative abilities of the police.

In conclusion, the commission opines that in line with the Royal Commission’s strategic objective which was to “transform the Royal Malaysian Police into a world-class, twenty-first century organisation that is efficient, clean and trustworthy, dedicated to serving the people and the nation with integrity and respect for human rights”, the PDRM must aim towards fully adopting and implementing policing policies and techniques that are effective, lawful and humane. – May 1, 2015.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/police-must-respect-constitutional-rights-suhakam#sthash.TvJpNWTF.dpuf

Proham calls on the Police to stop arresting people who were exercising their fundamental human rights during the May 1st rally

PROHAM is shocked that the Police have arrested Ambiga Sreenevasan, Anthony Loke, and S. Arutchelvan after the 1st of May rally..

The  May 1st  is celebrated worldwide with public rallies. Hence, participation in such rallies is a fundamental right and consistent with universal human rights principles as freedom to assemble and expression. The Police action to crack down on such rallies is uncalled for and is in violation of human rights standards.

Further, the Police can immediately after the arrest, record a statement and release those arrested without the necessity of overnight detention or further remand. Such detention is an abuse of process in respect of such offences as there is nothing further to investigate.

PROHAM calls on the Police to respect fundamental human rights and not restrict the exercise of such rights which is part of democratic freedoms. The Police must respect the rights of the people to exercise their democratic freedoms. The Police must stop arresting citizens who are exercising this fundamental human right.

PROHAM urges the Police to immediately release all detainees especially the 29 youths of the May 1st Rally.

Issued by Datuk Kuthubul Zaman (Proham Chairman) & Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (Proham Secretary General)

May 2, 1015

ROYAL POLICE COMMISSION FINDINGS TEN YEARS ON (April 29 - 2005 & 2015)

Photo taken on April 29, 2015 after the Royal Police Commission
submitted findings on the then Prime Minister 

Ten years ago on April 29, 2005 the Royal Commission headed by Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin bin Haji Abdullah completed and presented the Commission Report to the Yang dPertuan Agong and the Prime Minister on how to enhance the operation and management of the Royal Malaysian Police.

The establishment of this Royal Commission on Feb 4, 2004 was hailed as a major initiative of the then Prime Minister Abdullah “amidst widespread concerns regarding high incidence of crime, perception of corruption, general dissatisfaction with the conduct and performance of police personnel and a desire to see improvements in the service provided by the police”

The major findings of the Royal Commission were summarized in the nine major challenges confronting PDRM and in the ten strategic thrust proposed including 125 recommendations.

Ten years on what are our reflections.

First, we can see visible improvement in the infrastructure facilities of the Police and a Police with better equipments’ and resources for effective Policing.

Second, we can note that the Federal Government set crime reduction and perception of crime as a major effort of effective governance through the National Key Performance Areas (NKRA),

Third, the establishment of the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) as an independent monitoring and enquiry oversight to Police and other enforcement agencies.

Ten years ago the Royal Commission received 926 complaints of which 191 complaints regarding abuse of power and 186 on inefficiency and lack of accountability, 119 complaints on poor public relations, 98 on Police corruption and 20 complaints on death in police custody. A total of 316 suggestions were received from the Public and another 22 suggestions were received from PDRM

Contemporary Concerns in 2015

Ten years on in 2015 we continue to have major issues on public confidence and PDRM, continuing concerns of death in custody issues, abuse of power including issues pertaining to “arrest first and then investigate” including Police handing of public assemblies and in the use of the Sedition act has raised major concerns inconsistent with UDHR.

Major concerns have been voiced by human rights based civil society on the ineffective performance of EAIC and the limiting legal provisions which falls short of the originally IPCMC prosed by the Police commission.

In addition the recent amendments to the Sedition Act and the Prevention of Crime Act and the new legislation on the Prevention of Terrorism Act has restricted compliance to universal human rights standards which can be reviewed as back stepping the earlier shift from restrictive democratic space to an open but accountable political climate which enhances civil and political rights for all sections of Malaysian society.

Recommendations in 2015

We note with great concern that there is a no comprehensive public document or impact review report which has systematically analysed the implementation of the 125 recommendations.

We therefore call on the Federal Government:-

To convene a meeting of the former Royal Commission members for a briefing and review

To establish an independent and professional impact assessment team to review the findings and delivery over the last 10 years

To establish a formal public dialogue mechanism with civil society and PDRM on public complaints

To reconsider and implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission to set up the IPCMC as a separate oversight body for PDRM

To issue a status report on the implementation of the Royal Commission recommendations noting the achievements, challenges, gaps and failures so as to ensure a renewed commitment in enhancing the operations and management of PDRM

Issued by two former Royal Police Commission members namely:-

Datuk Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari (Proham Chairman) and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (Secretary General Proham)

April 29, 2015

G40 joins call for moderation

WE are a group of Malaysians deeply concerned about the state of our nation. 

Never before in this country’s history have such stresses and strains been made to bear upon the foundational principles of nationhood which now threaten to subvert the bonds that have held all Malaysians together and kept the nation comprising the territorial components of Peninsular Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak intact.

Constructed when Malaya achieved independence in 1957 under the Merdeka Constitution, the basic structure was re-­examined and re-­established when the Federation of Malaysia came into being in 1963, with the concerns of the Borneo states taken into consideration.

Malaysia’s constitutional history records the fact that this country is a secular nation with Islam as the religion of the Federation.

As a rainbow nation of many peoples with diverse religions, we charted our destiny upon a civil and nonreligious national legal order resting firmly on the twin principles of the Supremacy of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

In 1982, the Government introduced a policy to inculcate universal Islamic values that all Malaysians have little difficulty in supporting. Of these 10 values – trust, responsibility, honesty, dedication, moderation, diligence, discipline, cooperation, honourable behaviour and thanksgiving – what remains of the policy today is the single value of moderation under the Islamic concept of wasatiyah.

Even that value of moderation is ignored by certain quarters, including political leaders who espouse sectarian views to suit their audiences.

It is unfortunate that the policy of promoting these 10 values has become a platform for “Islamisation” by religious bureaucrats.

There is mounting disquiet on the bureaucracy­driven “Islamisation” of Malaysia and the Malaysian way of life by the expanding and increasingly assertive religious bureaucracies, both at the federal and constituent state levels, and the posturing of extremist individuals and groups capitalising on this trend.

We reiterate that we have a civil national legal order which is religion neutral. We are not a theocratic state with religious law being prescribed as the supreme law of the land. Neither should we be forced to live by the Rule of Religious Diktats, where decrees of religious bureaucrats have legal and punitive effect.

Lip service and pious platitudes acknowledge the supremacy of the Constitution as the nation’s supreme law. At the same time, diktats of the religious bureaucrats are given an overarching significance over the Constitution. This has eroded public confidence in the national legal order and in the administrators and adjudicators of this order.

 Legislations need only pass the test of constitutionality. But these are now subject to the scrutiny of religious bureaucrats who can impede the implementation of such laws.

A case in point would be the Domestic Violence Act 1994, which could not be brought into force for almost two years. A similar fate befell the stillborn law reform initiative to preserve the status quo of the rights of parties arising out of one spouse in a civil marriage converting to Islam upon the dissolution of their marriage.

In a democracy, the separation of powers doctrine is the bedrock of good governance. An independent judiciary is essential to ensure a fair and just adjudication of disputes between parties and more importantly, between individuals and the governing authorities.

The 1988 amendments to the Constitution exclude the civil High Courts’ jurisdiction over matters within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts. This has unfortunately spawned serious jurisdictional issues and worrying decisions where some civil courts decline to adjudicate constitutional issues and even accede jurisdiction to the Syariah Court.

At the individual and societal level, there is also grave concern about the attendant negative impact on freedom of religion, as well as the religious and civil rights of non­Muslims, including the constitutional right of parents to determine the religion and religious upbringing of their children who are minors.

Non­Islamic religions appear to be increasingly marginalised amid growing indications of intolerance of non­Muslims, their beliefs and their practices.

This development has undermined Malaysia’s claim that it is a model moderate nation where Islam coexists harmoniously with other religions in a multicultural society.

The Government’s call for moderation is being challenged by loud voices of intolerance and immoderation which, if unchecked, will tear apart the unity of citizens bound together by a common nationality.

We reassert the concerns raised and endorse the recommendations set out in the open letter issued on Dec 8 last year by a group of 25 Malaysians.

We consider ourselves duty­bound to call upon the Federal Government and the State Governments to give their undivided attention to this grave peril which our nation faces.

Let there be a recommitment to the genuine pursuit of the 10 universal values which will be fully supported by all Malaysians and will make Malaysia a good and great nation.

Let our leaders, be they from the legislative, executive or judicial arms of governance with the undivided support of all patriotic Malaysians, uphold their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution.

We write this letter with deep anguish. Our leaders must, with immediacy, act intentionally, decisively and authoritatively before irretrievable damage is done to our beloved country.

Sincerely,

1. Datuk Albert Talalla, former High Commissioner to Canada, Ambassador to China, Germany and the United States, and former Director­General of the Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations

2. Datin Beatrix Vohrah, former Professor of the Law, UiTM

3. Bob Teoh, freelance writer, former General Secretary of NUJ and Secretary­General of the Confederation of Asean Journalists

4. Datuk Choo Siew Kioh, former Ambassador to Sweden and the Republic of Mali, High Commissioner to India and former Commissioner of Suhakam

5. Tan Sri Clifford Francis Herbert, former Secretary­General of the Finance Ministry

6. Dr David K.L. Quek, past President of the Malaysian Medical Association

7  Datuk Dennis Ignatius, former High Commissioner to Canada

8. Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria, Secretary­General of Proham and former Commissioner of Suhakam

9. Dr Faisal Hamdi Hamzah, medical practioner

10. Hartini Zainudin, child activist

11. Datuk K.C. Vohrah, former Judge of the Court of Appeal and former Commissioner of Suhakam, CoEditor of Sheridan and Groves: The Constitution of Malaysia (Fifth Edition)

12. Datuk Ir K.J. Abraham, former Deputy Director­General of the Department of Irrigation and Drainage

13. Dr K.J. John, Founding Director of the Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute (OHMSI)

14. Datuk Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari, Chairman of Proham and past president of the Malaysian Bar

15. Tan Sri Lal Chand Vohrah, former Judge of the High Court, former Judge of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and former Judge of the Appeals Chamber of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

16. Dr Lee Su See, former Head of the Forest Health and Conservation Programme, Forest Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM) and Vice­President of the International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO)

17. Datuk Leong Yoke Faie, former Chief Executive BP Malaysia Sdn Bhd

18. Dr Lee Kam Hing, former Professor of History, University of Malaya

19. Datuk Lew Sip Hon, former Malaysian Ambassador to the United States

20. Lim Heng Seng, former Chairman of the Industrial Court and Head of Arbitration and Deputy Head of Civil Litigation, Attorney General’s Chambers

21. Datuk Lily Zachariah, former Ambassador to the Republic of Italy, Chile and Senegal

22. Lyana Khairuddin, educator and scientist working on HIV and HPV

23. Datuk Mahadev Shanker, former Court of Appeal Judge and former Commissioner of Suhakam

24. Mano Maniam, actor, teacher and scholar at local and US universities, recipient of the Fulbright Distinguished Artiste Award in 2000

25. Dr Mulkit Singh, former Professor (Microbiology) of the National University of Singapore and former Professor, School of Medicine of Notre Dame University, Australia

26. Datuk Patrick Sindu, former President of the Consumer Association of Sabah

27. Philip Koh, Co­Editor of Sheridan and Groves: The Constitution of Malaysia (Fifth Edition)

28. Datuk Ramesh Chander, former Chief Statistician of Malaysia and Senior Statistical Adviser to the World Bank

29. Datuk Dr Rathie Thuraisingham, past president of the Malaysian Medical Association, member and elected Master of the Academy of Medicine

30. Rose Ismail, former journalist, coach and trainer

31. Dr Saw Leng Guan, Director of the Forest Biodiversity Division of FRIM and fellow of Academy of Sciences Malaysia (ASM)

32. Sharifah Zuriah Aljeffri, artist and social activist

33. Tan Sri Simon Sipaun, former Sabah State Secretary and former Vice­Chairman of Suhakam

34. Datuk Stanley Isaacs, former Head of Prosecution, Commissioner of Law Revision and Parliamentary Draftsmen of Attorney General’s Chambers

35. Datuk Stephen Foo Kiat Shin, former State Attorney General of Sabah

36. Tan Siok Choo, lawyer and newspaper columnist

37. Prof Terence Gomez, Professor, Faculty of Economics, University of Malaya

38. Tan Sri VC George, former Court of Appeal Judge

39. Datuk Wilfred Lingham, former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Development, Sabah

40. Yip Pit Wong, former Director of the Malaysian Anti­Corruption Commission (MACC) Sarawak and Chief Senior Assistant Commissioner, MACC Selangor

Malaysia on a Rights- abusing course

"The rights abusing Sedition Act should be on the chopping block in Parliament, not on the building block with newly proposed amendments to impose mandatory prison sentences and strip away the right to bail.  

Instead of acting like rubber stamp drones, government MPs should find the courage to join the opposition in rejecting these amendments and insist that Prime Minister Najib fulfill his original promise to do away with the Sedition Act.  

If these new Sedition Act amendments pass, joining the POTA bill re-imposing detention without trial, this will truly be a week in Malaysia that will live in human rights infamy.  

International friends of Malaysia need to redouble their efforts to dissuade the government from continuing on this rights-abusing course, which will cause long term damage to democracy and governance in Malaysia."  

Phil Robertson, Deputy Director for Asia, Human Rights Watch,  about the pending Sedition Act amendments.

UN tells Putrajaya to withdraw amendments to Sedition Act

The United Nation's Human Rights high commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein today urged Putrajaya to withdraw its proposed amendments to the Sedition Act 1948, warning that the new provisions would seriously undermine the freedom of expression and opinion in the country.

He said the proposal also breached the Federal Constitution and the country's international human rights obligations.

Zeid also expressed concern over the tabling of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota) in Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday, saying that there were serious human rights shortcomings in the law. 

"The UN Human Rights Office has long urged Malaysia to either repeal the Act or to bring it in line with international human rights standards.

"It is very disappointing that the government is now proposing to make a bad law worse.”

He added that the proposal would widen the scope of offences and new provisions for travel bans were also worrying as they might allow for arbitrary restrictions against individuals on the basis of an ill-defined law.

"These proposals are particularly worrying given that the Sedition Act has been applied in many instances to curb legitimate exercise of freedom of expression in Malaysia – including through arrests of individuals for merely tweeting their criticism of government policies and judicial decisions," he said.

Zeid also urged Putrajaya to review cases of all those who have been charged under the Act.

"Silencing dissent does not nurture social stability, but an open democratic space does.

"Curtailing the legitimate exercise of human rights in the name of fighting terrorism has been shown, time and again, to backfire and to only lead to festering discontent and a strong sense of injustice."

He said as chair of Asean, Malaysia should ensure that its leadership role at the regional and international levels is backed up by a firm commitment to ensure the human rights of all in Malaysia. – April 9, 2015.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/withdraw-sedition-act-changes-un-tells-putrajaya#sthash.OWAymvm4.dpuf

Proposed amendments to the Sedition Act will further erode free speech

PROHAM is shocked to see the proposed amendments to the Sedition Act. These proposed amendments, if passed by Parliament, will be a setback for Malaysia as it will further erode the already limited rights of Malaysians to free speech.

The proposed amendments which also create new offences will have serious repercussions that affect fundamental human rights.

Removing judicial discretion in bail and sentencing strikes to the very essence of a judicial function by Judges and hence, any legislation that prohibits this judicial function is an affront to justice and freedom.

PROHAM urges and appeals to the Prime Minister to once again keep to his earlier promise to do away with the Sedition Act altogether and in the circumstances, to withdraw the proposed amendments.

Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari

Chairman, PROHAM