‘Invite UN indigenous peoples' rep to see for himself’

by Hilary Chiew- The Star

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia should invite the United Nations special rapporteur on indigenous issues James Annaya to visit the country to allay criticism of its allegedly poor human rights record with regard to the indigenous community.

Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact Foundation (AIPP) secretary-general Joan Carling urged Malaysia to take up the recommendation by other countries such as Mexico, which raised the matter during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) hearing in Geneva last month.

“Malaysia’s response -- that it is taking good care and recognises the rights of its indigenous peoples -- seemed to suggest that there’s no need for a special rapporteur to visit the country,” she told a press conference here Friday after a two-day gathering of Asian indigenous activists.

She said indigenous groups in Malaysia had long been fighting for their right to their native territories, and these struggles continue today.

Therefore, she said, it is insufficient for Malaysia to adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) -- which it did in September 2007 -- without making real change on the ground to address the land-grab issue affecting many indigenous people, particularly those in Sabah and Sarawak.

Malaysia Indigenous Peoples’ Network president Adrian Lasimbang said many policy-makers are not aware of Malaysian’s adoption of UNDRIP and would be surprised that the country actually supported the commitments undertaken by the non-binding declaration.

“(That’s why) we are still facing all sorts of rights violation brought by development projects that do not consult us or compensate us (for our land loss),” he added.

Carling, who was present at the hearing, said Malaysia was also scrutinised for its poor response to the adoption of other UN human rights instruments.

Non-govermental organisations which submitted their reports on the state of human rights in the country to the Human Rights Council last August had recommended that Malaysia lift its reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Other key recommendations was for Malaysia to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The UPR is a mechanism under the auspices of the Human Rights Council introduced in 2006 which involves a review of the human rights records of all 192 UN member states once every four years.

Individual governments are given the opportunity to present their self-assessments in an interactive dialogue before the countries of the world. It is designed to ensure equal treatment for every country when their human rights situations are assessed.

Secretary-general in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia, Tan Sri Rastam Mohamad Isa, presented the national report on Feb 11.

He was reported to have said Malaysia remained open to the possibility of further discussions with the various special procedures on the proposed visits and was willing to consider such requests on the merit of each proposal.

Police Shoot Dead Five Armed Robbers

PENANG, March 7 (Bernama) -- Five armed men, believed to be Vietnamese who had staged a robbery, were shot dead in a shootout with the police at Km15.7 of the Butterworth-Kulim Expressway (BKE) here early today.

State police chief Datuk Wira Ayub Yaakob said they were among eight men suspected to have robbed 11 Vietnamese at a hostel in Taman Perak, Kulim, in Kedah and were making their getaway to Seberang Jaya in two cars.

The five, in a silver Perodua Kenari car, were stopped by a police team along the BKE at 3.10am but they starting firing at the police, their shots hitting the rear windscreen of the police patrol car, he said.

"The policemen, in defence, fired several shots at the car and killed the five men in it," he told reporters after flagging off a community and Rakan Cop treasure hunt at the Penang police headquarters, here.

Ayub said a team of five policemen on duty, acting on a tip-off from their counterparts in Kulim, had bumped into the robbers at the Penanti rest and recreation area but they sped off on seeing the police.

However, he said, another police team managed to stop the car at Km15.7 of the BKE.

"A pistol, a live bullet, two ski masks, 11 machetes, a metal cutter and a crowbar were found in the car which had false registration plates," he said.

Preliminary investigation showed that the car was reported missing on Oct 20 last year, he added.

Ayub said the bodies of the five men were sent to the Seberang Jaya Hospital.

He also said that Penang police would help their counterparts in Kulim to track down the three other men who had escaped in another car.

Ayub said the state police had launched a special operation code-named "Ops Rantau" to monitor criminal cases involving foreigners, especially Vietnamese, who might have lost their jobs due to cost-cutting by factories due to the economic downturn.

8 glaring differences: Kugan's mum lodges police report

Kugan : Stop Manipulation Get to Root Issue

Malaysiakini: Syed Hamid, want to offer your office?

…”Kapar MP S Manickavasagam who was also present, responded to Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar’s statement questioning why the Kugan case was politicised.

“The minister asked why we used the PKR headquarters to hold the press conference. Well, if Syed Hamid can offer his office to us, we are willing to use it to meet the press. Kugan’s family cannot afford to book a hotel ballroom, so we offered our party office.”

The Key issue here is MURDER of car Theft Accused A . Kugan while under Police Custody. He has no prior criminal record and he had cooperated with police investigation which lead to some cars recovered. So, why he was murdered and POLICE knows the culprits whom caused his life. Instead of arresting or remanding them, POLICE with support of Home Minister still let them mingling around public. Why, planning to KILL few more?

The Police and Home Minister trying all their level best to manipulate MURDER committed by some unscrupulous Police personnel whom may not necessarily low ranking. Looking at the involvement of a Cabinet Minister , IGP and a State Police chief in trying to protect their own act I can strongly feel possible conspiracy involve in Kugan’s Murder. Why until today Police never arrest the Warehouse Owner whom stored stolen cars? What’s the link between them and Police?

Instead to finding the root cause, look what they had done for far :

1) Asking why held press conference at PKR HQ. Public wanted to come to Parliament to submit memo , their arrest. We go to police station to report, they arrest. Even if we group together, they call it illegal gathering . It’s merely act of Home Minister try to divert public attention.

2) Incomplete Government Hospital autospy report , never touch death body below waist. Hospital administation claim pathologist afraid family will barge into when conducting authsopy. What’s a silly excuse? So they think, the family member all terrorist or what? Or, he afraid of giving false report to police? The Police already at Mortuary before autospy commence, so what made his to worry?

3) When death occurred, the police gave us lies and tried to cover up by telling us that he died while he was drinking water. And when the (first) post-mortem report came out, they said he died of water in his lungs.

4) The police came out with weak excuses and what I call a diversion tactic by saying that we barged into the (Serdang Hospital) mortuary. This was an act to divert the public’s focus from the murder.

5) They tried their very best to prevent us from getting a second post-mortem report. The IGP (Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan) today in the news said that he can’t wait to read the report, but they used all the obstacles to prevents us from getting a second post-mortem.

6) Up to this day, no one was arrested or remanded for the murder.

So what’s next …. argue the finding of Second Post Mortem?

Check on the First Autospy report page 4 the ,conclusion. The Doctor cann’t identify the true cause ” SEMBAP PARU-PARU” or Bloated Lungs.

The same report also conclude Kugan’s died due to “Pulmonary Oedema” , which Wikipedia says due to direct damage to the tissue or a result of inadequate functioning of the heart or circulatory system. So, why the doctor made a hanging report. Though I’m not medical doctors, this questions easily arise in our mind when we involve into the issue.

When it come to their Cronies all kind of excuses Given, when it involves opposition they search for faults or reasons to charge them.

Let’s Wait for Attorney General’s professional reaction.

Autopsy reports: 8 glaring differences - Malaysiakini

After discovering vast discrepancies in the two post-mortem reports, the family of dead detainee A Kugan did the next sensible thing - lodge a police report and hope to see justice done.

MCPX

This morning, M Indra did just that. She lodged a police report against Serdang Hospital and the pathologist who conducted the first post-mortem on her son’s body.

Accompanying her to the Petaling Jaya police district headquarters to lodge the report were her lawyer, two MPs and several family members.

Dr Abdul Karim Tajudin of Serdang Hospital performed the first post-mortem while Dr Prashant N Samberkar of Universiti Malaya Medical Centre conducted the second one. The Prashant post-mortem report was submitted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers by Indra on Thursday.

The Prashant report revealed that the 22-year-old deceased endured severe beatings and was also starved during his incarceration while the Karim report said the cause of death was inconclusive.

According to the family's lawyer N Surendran, there were eight major differences in the two reports:

1) The Karim report said that Kugan's back had V-shaped abrasions. The Prashant report stated that the V-shaped marks were burn wounds inflicted with a heated object.

2) The Karim report listed down 22 marks of external injuries. The Prashant report listed down almost 40 marks of external injuries.

3) The Karim report said the brain was normal while the Prashant report stated that the brain had congested blood vessels.

4) The Karim report said the neck muscles were normal. The Prashant report indicated hemorrhage of the right neck muscle.

5) The Karim report said the heart was normal. The Prashant report revealed hemorrhage of the heart.

6) The Karim report said the spleen was normal. The Prashant report revealed large area of hemorrhage in the spleen.

7) The Karim report said other organs in the abdomen were examined and were normal. The Prashant report said that in the first post-mortem, organs in the abdomen were not removed for dissection.

8) The Karim report gave the cause of death as pulmonary oedema which cause was unknown. The Prashant report clearly stated that the cause of death was kidney failure due to beatings.

"We are shocked and surprised to see the differences - it is puzzling for a pathologist to miss a burn mark or a large area of hemorrhage in the spleen," said Surendran.

Serdang Hospital’s ridiculous statement

Disappointed and shocked by the significant differences, Kugan's mother today demanded an investigation on whether it was an attempt to cover up the truth by the hospital and the pathologist Dr Abdul Karim.

"Were they trying to protect the police? Was police involved in any cover-up? How could Dr Abdul Karim say the other organs in the abdomen were examined when the second report showed he did not remove those organs for dissection?" Indra asked.

She also questioned why the cause of death in the first report was inconclusive while the second one was able to identify the cause of death. She asked for action to be taken against both Dr Abdul Karim and the Serdang Hospital.

Kugan had died on Jan 20 at the Taipan police station in Subang Jaya, five days after he was arrested in connection with the theft of luxury cars.

On Serdang Hospital director Dr Mohd Norzi Ghazali’s statement yesterday that Kugan's body could have been tampered with, Surendran said it was ridiculous as video evidence clearly indicated that the body was not.

"If what he said was true, the first post-mortem should have stated it as any pathologist can identify cuts and injuries that have been inflicted after the death of a person. Both the post-mortem reports have not indicated such injuries on the body," said the lawyer.

"The statement made by the Serdang Hospital is so ridiculous that I think I don't even need to produce scientific evidence," he said.

Surendran also felt that it was improper for a hospital director to come out with such a statement.Syed Hamid, want to offer your office?

Meanwhile, Kapar MP S Manickavasagam who was also present, responded to Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar’s statement questioning why the Kugan case was politicised.

"The minister asked why we used the PKR headquarters to hold the press conference. Well, if Syed Hamid can offer his office to us, we are willing to use it to meet the press. Kugan's family cannot afford to book a hotel ballroom, so we offered our party office."

Manickavasagam also said that the issue of Kugan's brutal death not only concerned a particular race, but every one in the country.

Teluk Intan MP M Manogaran, who was also present, called for the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) to take action against Dr Abdul Karim.

"The MMC should be pro-active and call the mother if she wants to lodge a report against Dr Karim," he said.

He also questioned Dr Karim's qualifications and asked if he was influenced by the police.

"How can a pathologist not be able to conduct a complete post-mortem?" he asked.

Manogaran also urged the media not to criminalise Kugan and spare his family from further suffering.

Pakatan turns to palace

IPOH, March 6 — Amidst the ever-rising mountain of legal suits filed and police reports lodged, Pakatan Rakyat has now returned to the palace in hopes of finding a way out of Perak’s constitutional crisis.

Ironically however, it was the palace which was the first stumbling block when their appeal to Sultan Azlan Shah for the dissolution of the state assembly on Feb 4 was met with brusque rejection.

To top it off, the ruler had even gone so far as to demand for the resignation of the Pakatan Rakyat government the very next day, to which Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin had “respectfully” rejected.

Now, Nizar faces the possibility of standing before Sultan Azlan Shah yet again and urging the Ruler, for the second time, to dissolve the state assembly.

That is, of course, if he is granted an audience.

Former exco member Nga Kor Ming told pressmen today that Nizar would be carrying more ammunition with him this time, in the form of the three motions approves beneath the tree during an emergency sitting three days ago.

The motions are – a vote of confidence for Nizar as the rightful Mentri

Besar instead of his successor from Barisan Nasional, Datuk Dr Zambry Abd Kadir, a request for royal consent for the dissolution of the state assembly, and the adoption of the decision made by Speaker V Sivakumar as chairman of the assembly’s Rights and Privileges Committee to suspend Dr Zambry and his six “unlawful” exco members from the House.

“It is the wish of Perakians that the assembly gets dissolved and power is returned to them to decide on their own government.

“With greatest respect to His Royal Highness, we hope that this is granted,” Nga told reporters at the Perak DAP headquarters.

The big question now is whether the palace will grant an audience to Nizar in the first place for there are ongoing deliberations in the courts as to whether Tuesday’s sitting had been legal.

The Ipoh High Court had even issued an order on the very day of the sitting, restraining Sivakumar from convening any unlawful meetings, purporting it to be state assembly sittings.

Lawyers have confirmed however that the order, served to Sivakumar two days ago, was not “retroactive”, which means that it did not apply to Tuesday’s sitting.

Nga scoffed at the order, saying that it only applied to stopping Sivakumar from convening “unlawful” meetings and there was no mention of “lawful” ones.

“We do not need a court order to tell us that we are not allowed to convene unlawful meetings,” he joked.

As such, added Nga, the three resolutions passed by the House on Tuesday were legal and should be complied by all assemblymen, even those who had not attended the sitting.

Of Perak’s 59 assemblymen, all 28 from Pakatan Rakyat had attended the sitting, including Sivakumar as the Speaker, while none of the Barisan Nasional’s 28 or the three Independents were there.

“The motions passed remain unaffected for there was no court order declaring otherwise.

“We had the quorum of one quarter of the House, we adjourned to a lawful place under the ‘yellow flame tree’ and we have a legal Speaker,” he said.

“With this, I appeal to my dear friend Dr Zambry to call it a day and resign as the Mentri Besar. After all, he no longer commands the majority support of the House,” he said.

Dr Zambry however, has chosen to turn a deaf ear to his opponents and has instead gone about with his Mentri Besar duties.

In a separate function yesterday, a cheerful Dr Zambry told reporters that since his one month in office, Perak had seen a deluge of investments.

He reassured the people that despite the seemingly unhealthy economic and political climate, Perak’s investment portfolio had remained virile.

Dr Zambry has also decided to keep mum on the Opposition’s antics in trying to wrest his Mentri Besar post back.

When reporters attempted to grill him on political matters, the ever-smiling Dr Zambry reiterated that he would not entertain such questions.

He has chosen to put himself and his government at the mercy of the court of law, a place where the Pakatan Rakyat, despite valiant efforts, has, in recent days, lost some of its advantage.

Earlier yesterday however, an attempt to regain some advantage was made when counsels fighting to represent Sivakumar in two suits, filed notices of appeal in Putrajaya and in Ipoh to overrule the High Court decision that the Speaker had to be represented by the state legal adviser.

The suits against Sivakumar are — an application for a declaration from the court by three Independents stating their resignations had been illegal and a declaration that the suspension of Dr Zambry and his six excos had been unlawful and invalid.

Perak PR to sue Perak State Legal Adviser

By Debra Chong and Edward Cheah- The malaysian insider

KUALA LUMPUR, March 6 — Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar is suing the State Legal Adviser (SLA) to stop the latter from representing him in an ongoing case in the Ipoh High Court.

Prominent lawyer, Tommy Thomas, who is acting on behalf of Sivakumar filed the suit through his legal assistant N. Ganesan at the High Court here close to 4pm today.

However, Sivakumar did not name Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid personally in the suit.

In the copy of the filed papers given to the media, Sivakumar said the order made by Ipoh High Court judge Ridwan Ibrahim is a “sham order, done in deceit and therefore null and void and not binding on and/ or enforceable against the Plantiff”.

Sivakumar argues the SLA had “acted without authority” when he claimed to represent the Speaker in two separate court proceedings behind closed doors: the first on March 3 and again, yesterday.

He added the SLA had “acted negligently, in breach of contract and in breach of duty” as well as breaking the trust in his professional capacity.

Sivakumar wants the High Court here to set aside Justice Ridwan’s order compelling him to use the SLA as his only legal counsel in court.

Perak DAP chief Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham told reporters earlier that Sivakumar’s suit against the SLA was filed here instead of in Ipoh because “the KL High Court is seen to be more independent”.

“It looks like there is a collusion between Ahmad Kamal and Zambry,” Ngeh noted, referring to de facto Menteri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is also represented by the SLA in a related court case here.

“I’m not saying it is collusion but people are saying it is one,” Ngeh defended quickly, pointing out a recent New Straits Times report quoting judicial sources who have already passed judgment on the ongoing matter.

Uthayakumar: I've never refused medication

by Olaichuvadi

Hindraf leader and ISA detainee P Uthayakumar has made a hand-written report at the Kamunting police station refuting a press report that he did not take his medicines while in detention.

In the report, he dismissed the news report in the New Straits Times titled "Refused Treatment, Medicine 18 Times" published on March 3 as based on 'a false police report or false media statement'.

"I wish to state here that from the day I was arrested and detained here on December 13, 2007 up to the day of this police report, I have been taking my diabetic tablets and other medication except when the same was denied to me by the Kemta Prison authorities in early 2008.

uthayakumar sedition trial 201008 02“To prove this, I invite the police to come to my prison block in Kemta Prison @ Malaysia's Guantanamo Bay to check for themselves, verify and confirm the hundreds of empty diabetic and other medicine shells."

He also dared the police to check and verify the prison diary for his requests for medicine every week.

According to Uthayakumar, he has been requesting for private medical treatment at Gleneagles Hospital because he had lost confidence in government hospitals.

Citing A Kugan's suspicious post-mortem as an example, he remarked that he was fearful of the Special Branch interfering with government hospital doctors and medical reports to cover up the true and accurate state of his health.

"The numerous affidavits by these doctors in my High Court case and my two previous police reports dated Feb 2 and Feb 6 made through my family and myself are evidence."

He also said that despite his complaints about the uneven road surface and potholes which have caused his injuries, nothing had been done to repair the conditions in his prison block or shift him to a better location.

'They're trying to kill me'

In addition, he alleged that he was served sugar added bread everyday, and urged the police to confiscate them before evidence is wiped out, saying, "I can't help but think that the home minister and government of Malaysia are trying to kill me in prison for political reasons.

I also want my new found silent heart condition (hypnokinetic) to be checked. I also need to consult a specialist cardiologist on whether I need to start taking aspirin and high blood pressure medication arising out of these depressive prison conditions.

"Should anything happen to me in prison, the home minister and the government of Malaysia are responsible."

In another letter, directed to Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar from Uthayakumar's lawyers Edwin Lim and N Surendran, the lawyers alleged that he had received different reports from two doctors for the same condition.

The letter was written to appeal for Uthayakumar's release so that he could seek independent medical treatment.

According to the letter, the lawyers stated that Uthayakumar was finally allowed to seek treatment at Taiping General Hospital where he took an X-Ray on his left toe after 18 days of police reports, public protests and numerous requests made to the Kemta Prison authorities..

The X-Ray results showed that he had three toe fractures, compared to an earlier report prepared at the Kuala Lumpur General Hospital which showed only one toe fracture.

Unfortunately, the doctor at Taiping General Hospital could not verify if his toe had healed in 18 days as he did not have the original X-Ray taken at Kuala Lumpur Hospital.

Malaysian Wins Court Battle To Become Christian

An Islamic court in Malaysia ruled Friday (6 March) that a man given an Islamic name at birth was a Christian, a rare victory for religious minorities in this Muslim-majority nation.

The man _ whose original identity card listed his name as "Mohammad Shah alias Gilbert Freeman" _ brought his case to the Shariah court in southern Negeri Sembilan state after the National Registration Department refused to accept he was a Christian and allow him to drop his Islamic name when he applied for a new identity card.

Lawyer Hanif Hassan said his client, who is 61, was raised as a Christian by his mother, and his Islamic name came from his Muslim father, who left the family when he was only 2-months-old. Freeman is married according to Christian rites and has three children who are Christians.

"The Shariah court ruled that he is not a Muslim. He is not practicing Islam, and he hasn't applied to be a Muslim," Hanif told The Associated Press.

He said his client was happy with the Shariah court's decision.

"This is a rare case but it shows that the Shariah courts are not rigid and are able to help resolve inter-religious disputes," he said.

Malaysia has a dual court system. Muslims are governed by the Islamic Shariah courts while civil courts have jurisdiction over non-Muslims. But inter-religious disputes usually end up in Shariah courts, and end in favor of Muslims.

Religious issues are extremely sensitive in Malaysia, where about 60% of the 27 million people are Muslims. Buddhist, Christian and Hindu minorities have accepted Islam's dominance but in recent years voiced fears that courts are unfairly asserting the supremacy of Islam, which is Malaysia's official religion.

Freeman sought the court's help because he said he was getting old and he didn't want any confusion over whether he should receive a Christian burial after, Hanif said.

There have been several cases of Islamic authorities claiming the bodies of people they say converted secretly to Islam. (By EILEEN NG/ AP)

Malaysia's politicians drained by constant wrangling, politicking

While UMNO has blamed the constant politicking for its slow pace of reform, opposition-controlled states such as Penang, led by Chinese-based DAP, just want to be left alone.

By Channel NewsAsia's Malaysia Bureau Chief Melissa Goh

It has been a year since Malaysia's landmark election in March 2008. Since then, constant wrangling has left the country's politicians physically drained and mentally distracted.

The "political tsunami" had swept the opposition Pakatan Rakyat alliance into power in five key states and had denied the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition a crucial two-thirds majority in Parliament.

But the initial euphoria and optimism have now been replaced by a sense of anxiety and frustration.

Anwar Ibrahim, opposition parliamentary leader, said: "There is a danger of complacency or lethargy creeping in. There's a need to rejuvenate."

Mr Anwar has been put on the defensive by a series of events that has gripped the fledging alliance – from Perak, where defections by Pakatan assemblymen caused the northern state to fall, to a nude picture scandal involving Selangor executive councillor, Elizabeth Wong, which saw her resign under mounting pressure last month.

The 62-year-old, who is still fighting off allegations of sodomy, issued a stern warning to all his party members.

"You wish to support the agenda? You remain. You wish to enrich yourself? You join UMNO," said Mr Anwar.

The ruling UMNO party blames him for the turmoil as he had issued threats to topple the federal government by September 16 last year.

Shahrir Samad, domestic and consumer affairs minister, UMNO supreme council member, said: "We are accused of politicking too much whereas we are not the ones who have indulged in politicking."

While UMNO has blamed the constant politicking for its slow pace of reform, opposition-controlled states such as Penang, led by Chinese-based DAP, just want to be left alone.

Jeffrey Ooi, opposition strategist, DAP, said: "We want to focus on our job. We want to have the least amount of distractions because of crossovers and money politics. We intend to stay on."

With three by-elections due on April 7, the political temperature looks set to rise further, and it will not be an easy ride for Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, who will become Malaysia's sixth prime minister at the end of this month.

While both sides blame each other for causing all the distractions, the people lament the waste of time, energy and taxpayers' money, which they said could have been better focused to jointly fix the economy, amid an onslaught of the global financial crisis.

Is there no decency left?

Anil Netto succintly sums up the findings of the second Kugan post-mortem report when he describes Kugan’s cause of death in layman’s terms : ‘kidney failure as a result of repeated beatings’.

Anil then reminds us that ‘the findings of the second post mortem report are so different from the first’ and suggests that the ‘Serdang Hospital personnel who conducted the first examination must now explain why all this was not detected or highlighted in their post mortem report’.

“How many other post mortems have there been like this? What have you got to say, Serdang Hospital?”, Anil asks.

Malaysiakini reports today that Bar Council Vice-President Ragunath said that the new autopsy raised several serious questions including “the integrity of the police force and the independence of the pathologist who conducted the initial autopsy”.

“The fact that the results of the second autopsy differ so extensively from that of the first smacks of an apparent attempt to cover up and protect members of the police force who were in charge of A Kugan during the period of detention”, Ragunath is reported to have opined.

NST online reports today that Serdang hospital director, Dr Mohd Norzi Ghazali, said a mob of about 50 people had barged in and tampered with the body before any post-mortem was carried out by the hospital’s forensics pathologist, and that consequently, both post-mortems were “weak evidence” in the case as they had been conducted after the body had been tampered with.

I’d suggest you read the NST report in full.

Even if Dr Mohd Norzi is right about the tampering of the body by the mob, that still does not explain the vast difference in the findings between the two post-mortem reports.

This still remains unexplained.

What I found most distressing, though, in all that Dr Mohd Norzi said, was his contention that the wounds on the body could have been inflicted after Kugan’s death, the clear insinuation being that these were inflicted by the mob, which included family members of the deceased.

Why, Doc, would you imagine that family members of a recently departed might mutilate the otherwise unblemished body of that recently departed?

To save some disgraceful men in the police force?

Doc, you need help!

AZALINA OTHMAN SAID'S POLITICAL SECRETARY QUIZZED BY MACC OFFICIALS FOR GRAFT

The Minister of Tourism, Datuk Sri Azalina Othman Said's political secretary have been identified as senior aide to an UMNO Minister who has been detained and quizzed by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for alleged graft involving RM70,000 on Wednesday.

This former senior politician, was quizzed at midnight and released several hours later after his statement was recorded. Its believed as reported that he has been alleged to have received the money from someone but no further details were available.

Money politics is on the rise as the coming UMNO elections are just around the corner (March 24).

picture courtesy of Malaysiakini

How to judge the judge?

by N. H. Chan

In The Sun newspaper, March 4, 2009, I read on page 1 this alarming report:

“Ipoh High Court grants injunction sought by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors to stop speaker V. Sivakumar from convening any state assembly sitting.
Court also ruled that Sivakumar’s five lawyers have no legal standing to represent him in the case filed by Zambry to seek a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful.”

The arrogance of a novice judge

I must say I was taken aback by the astonishing ruling of the High Court judge. The full report is on page 6 of the newspaper. There I find that the judge was Mr Ridwan Ibrahim, a judicial commissioner. He ruled that the lawyers “engaged by Sivakumar had no locus standi to represent him in an application by Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful”.

Sivakumar’s leading lawyer was Mr Tommy Thomas, and I quote from the newspaper of what he said:

“Thomas recounted what happened in chambers at a press conference outside the court.
He said the judge had earlier asked that only one lawyer from each party enter his chambers, so he (Thomas) went in on behalf of Sivakumar, while Zambry was represented by a counsel and the state legal officer.
‘An objection was made against me and my team, saying that we had no locus standi to represent the Speaker’.”

The objection was under section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act:

” … ‘the judge ruled against us saying that we had no locus standi and therefore we cannot defend the Speaker who can only be represented by the state legal adviser’.
. . . when he asked if he couid sit in and hold a watching brief with speaking rights, Ridwan ruled that no speaking rights would be granted but he could hold a watching brief.”

I am appalled at the arrogance of the judge. I am quite sure he is not an expert in constitutional law and even if he were, in a case of such great public importance to the nation, it is wise to listen to the views of the other side. Especially in this case, when eminent counsel Mr Tommy Thomas was available to assist him. The judge could have invited him to submit as an amicus curiae - in Latin it means ‘friend of the court’ and when the phrase is used in a court of law i means ‘one who advises the court in a csae’. I have done that many times even when I was in the Court of Appeal. Judges of far greater eminence than this Judicial Commissioner have often asked lawyers of great experience who are in the court for their valued views. Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country. Dick Hamilton in his book Foul Bills and Dagger Money wrote, at pages 244, 245:

“It is always easy to criticise judges, and some of them deserve it from time to time; but it is even easier to underestimate the difficulty of their task, and to take their successes for granted. No member of the Bar pretends to understand every branch of the law. … But a High Court Judge has to deal with any sort of case which comes before him.”

In order for the judge to tackle all sorts of cases which come before him, the wise and able judge is always humble enough to ask any of the lawyers in court who is an expert in his field for assistance. Here we have Tommy Thomas who is one of the top lawyers in the country who was only too willing to assist the judge, yet this probationary judge, who thinks he knew more law than some of the most eminent judges who have sat on the bench, refused to hear Mr Thomas.

How you can judge this judge

You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge. You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this. You might think that even a layman, after reading the applicable law, knows what is the right decision to make. And when a judge does not know the correct answer, it makes you wonder how such a thing could have happened.

On section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956

I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Subsections (1) reads:

“(1) Notwithstanding any written law
(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government …
(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State a law officer … authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State … may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government … “

As you can see this subsection is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the State Government.

And subsection (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:

“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party -
(a) by virtue of his office; or
(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer;
a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer … “

See also section 2 of the Act which gives the definition of:

” ‘legal officer’ includes a law officer”
” ‘law officer’ means . . . in respect of proceedings by or against the Government of a State or to which a State officer is a party, includes the Legal Adviser of such State”

This subsection only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is “may” not “must”) be represented by a legal officer which could include the Legal Adviser of the State. There is, therefore, nothing in section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the State Legal Officer.

In any case, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a State hold office as a member of the public service - if he does then he is a public officer. Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:

“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise -
(a) …
(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State;”

So now you koow that the Speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a State are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as such public officers. Therefore, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them. Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better, that Mr Tommy Thomas could not be prevented to appear for the Speaker Sivakumar. If only he would hear Mr Thomas, instead of barring him from speaking, he would not have made such a grave error.

On the conflict between the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Law

According to newspaper reports the case is an application by Mentri Besar Zambry to the court the decision of the speaker Sivakumar in the legislative assembly to suspend him and his 6 exco members unconstitutional and unlawful. The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?

The answer is staring right at us here in Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:

“(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.”

So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his 6 exco members by the Speaker in the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any court.

Lord Denning tried to inquire into a private Act of Parliament on the ground that Parliament was misled by fraud but he failed. The case is Pickin v. British Railways Board [1974] A.C. 765. He recounted this in his book What Next in the Law at page 319:

“A little while ago there was a case where the British Railways Board got a private Act vesting a man’s land in the Board without payment. He alleged that Parliament had been misled by fraud. In the Court of Appeal we held that the judges could inquire into it. But the House of Lords overruled us. They held that no inquiry by the judges could be permitted.”

It is important to remember that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. What more when we have a written constitution which says that “the validity of any proceedings in the State Legislative Assembly shall not be questioned in any court”.

From what we have read from the newspapers it seems that there is an injunction against the Speaker. You may also wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the Speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.

In The Family Story, Lord Denning tells us this story, at pages 194, 195:

“I would recall the great case of Ashby v. White 1 Smith’s Leading Cases 253 in 1703. There was a conflict between the House of Commons and the Law. A ‘poor indigent’ man named Mathias Ashby went to the polling booth and claimed a right to vote for two members of Parliament: but the voting officers refused to allow him to vote on the ground that he was no settled inhabitant of the borough. Ashby brought an action for damages. The House of Lords then resolved that Ashby was entitled to bring his action and to recover his damages of £5. The House there not only vindicated the fundamental right of a citizen to vote, but it also established the great principle that wherever a man has a right, he shall have a remedy at law to enforce it. The decision, so clearly a broadening of freedom, was, however, furiously opposed by the House of Commons. They ordered the arrest of the solicitor who acted for Ashby; and they committed to prison five other men simply because they, like Ashby, brought actions against the returning officers. These men applied for a writ of habeas corpus. They had counsel to argue for them. But the House of Commons thereupon took action against the counsel. The Sergeant-at-Arms actually arrested two of the counsel and would also have liked to have taken a third, Mr Nicholas Lechmere, ‘but that he got out of his chamber in the Temple, two pair of stairs high, at the back window, by the help of his sheets and a rope’. The controversy between the two Houses was only resolved because Queen Anne prorogued Parliament and the prisoners were released.”

The above account is not as strange as it seems. It is the common law of England and the common law of England that was in force on 7 April 1956 is embodied into the common law of West Malaysia, and the state of Perak is in West Malaysia, by virtue of section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956.

There is an interesting episode in Lord Denning’s The Family Story about a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He wrote, at page 192:

“In the ordinary way there is no conflict between our two great institutions - Parliament and the Courts. But in exceptional cases there has been. … The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law’.”

At page 193:

“On 8 February 1957 Mr Strause M.P. wrote a letter - on House of Commons paper - to Mr Maudling, the Paymaster-General. He complained of the behaviour of the London Electricity Board. He said that they were disposing of scrap cables at too low a price. He said their conduct was a scandal. Mr Maudling … passed the complaints on to the London Electricity Board. … The Board’s solicitor on 4 March 1957 wrote saying:
Your letter is wholly unsatisfactory and we are instituting proceedings …
That simple solicitor’s letter raised the great constitutional issue. Who was supreme? Parliament or the Courts of Law? Mr Strause said the letter (threatening a writ) was a breach of the priveleges of Parliament, and that the Board and its solicitor were punishable by the House itself. The London Electricity Boardsaid that they were entitled to have recourse to the Courts of Law and that the House of Commons could not stop them.
The issue was referred to the Privy Council. Seven Law Lords sat to hear them. I was one of them. I found myself in a minority of one. . . . They held that the House of Commons could treat the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament - in respect of a speech or proceeding in Parliament - as a breach of its privileges.”

At page 194:

“So if you read the Report in the Law Reports - re the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 [1958] A.C. 331 - you would think that it was a unanimous opinion of all seven,”

Those of you who are lawyers will know that the decision or advice of the Privy Council is given as a single opinion - only the majority view is given.

——————————————————————————–
NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh.

Bk. Tinggi Murder: Wife detained over contractor's murder

By : Alang Bendahara and Lee Shi-Ian

NST, March 04 2009

S. Sivanathan (left) and R. Kavita.

KUALA LUMPUR: The wife of murdered contractor S. Sivanathan and one of his workers have been detained by police for questioning.

Selangor Criminal Investigation Department chief Senior Assistant Commissioner II Hasnan Hassan, when contacted, confirmed that R. Kavita, 31, and another man had been picked up.

Police believe the duo can assist in investigations into the brutal slaying of Sivanathan, 31, in his bedroom in Bandar Bukit Tinggi 2, Klang, on Feb 22.

Hasnan, however, declined to give details.

It is learnt that police are looking for two other men in connection with the killing.
Sivanathan was asleep when three men walked into his house and slashed him on the neck, legs and hands at 9.15am.

Kavita had earlier said she had opened the front gate to drive to the market when her 3-year-old daughter started crying and insisted on following her.

As she alighted from the car and went into the house to get her daughter, three men brandishing parang walked into the house.

The men herded mother and child into one of the rooms downstairs and told them to be silent.

She had said she waited for several minutes and when there were no more movements in the house, she opened the room door and dashed out of the house to scream for help.

Several neighbours climbed on the roof of the porch and broke one of the windows of the master bedroom.

Sivanathan was found in a pool of blood on the bed, barely moving.

He was rushed to hospital where he died in the intensive care unit due to blood loss.

**********

Detained wife a 'victim of abuse'

By : By V. Shankar Ganesh
NST, March 05 2009

KLANG: R. Kavita, who was arrested in connection with the death of her husband, was a victim of wife abuse.

District police chief Assistant Commissioner Mohamad Mat Yusop said Kavita, 31, had lodged a police report in May last year after a severe beating.

However, police did not file any charges against her husband, S. Sivananthan, also 31.

On Feb 22, Sivanathan was hacked to death by three men at 9.15am while he was asleep at his house in Bandar Bukit Tinggi 2 here.

Kavita had told police the men rushed in after she had left the front gate open to pick up her 3-year-old daughter, who wanted to follow her to the market.
Mohamad said police had arrested eight people, including Kavita, in connection with the murder.

All were brought to the Klang magistrate's court and remanded yesterday.

It is learned that two of the detained men are Sivananthan's workers.

Mohamad said police believed hired killers were involved in the murder.

According to Makkal Osai 05/03/2009, Kavitha, wife of the murdered contractor Sivanathan initially paid RM 25,000 to kill her husband but the person reneged. Later she paid RM 50,000 to a different person who finished the job.

Ganesha temple in trouble

By KHARLEE ZUBIN March 06, 2009 Malay Mail

The oldest Ganesha temple in the country in Petaling Jaya faces possible takeover by the Insolvency Department following a long-standing row among the administrators.

In the event this happens, it will be the first time a religious institution is subjected to such a disgrace.

The Registrar of Societies, Datuk Md Alias Kalil, has issued a showcause letter dated March 3 to the management committee of the Sri Sithi Vinayagar Temple on Jalan Selangor as to why it should not be deregistered.

The committee has until April 3 to respond to the registrar.

The Hindu community, whose elders were contacted by Malay Mail, expressed indignation over the failure of the management committee to run the affairs of the temple.

They said it was a shame that the committee, comprising professionals, had been incapable of running a religious institution.

They speculated that the problems were the result of infighting and a power struggle.

The 50-year-old temple, a Petaling Jaya landmark, is run by the Petaling Jaya Hindu Association that has some 400 members. Concerned ex-committee members and a group of elected office bearers who resigned en bloc in September 2008 had sought the intervention of the registrar.

In a letter to the registrar, they alleged that payments for certain work and purchases had been made by a senior official without the approval of the committee.

It was also alleged that payments were made to certain individuals to prevent the Immigration Department from taking action against the committee for employing illegal foreign workers.

Further, it was claimed that misleading information on the accounts was furnished by the committee to the registrar.

The president and the committee members were not available for comment.

The registrar’s questions

● To show cause why it should not be deregistered for irregularities by the management committee that contravened rules of the association;

● Why office-bearers were elected without an emergency general meeting called;

● How office-bearers were elected without an election;

● To explain alleged irregularities in accounting; and

● To clarify alleged misappropriation of funds.

Ambiga To Receive US Courage Award

KUALA LUMPUR, March 6 (Bernama) -- Malaysia Bar president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan has been named among the eight recipients of this year's "International Women of Courage Award."

The award was established by the US Department of State.

According to the Press Office of the US Embassy here, Ambiga would receive the award from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington on Monday in conjunction with International Women's Day.

It said Ambiga was selected "for championing the rule of law and for advancing human rights, the status of women and religious tolerance in Malaysia.

"Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan has emerged as a strong voice for tolerance and justice, and has had a direct impact on judicial reform in Malaysia, contributing to strengthening of the role of women in civil society."

Other recipients are Veronika Marchenko (Russia), Mutabar Tadjibayeva (Uzbekistan), Hadjkjatou Mani (Niger), Reem Al-Numery (Yemen), Norma Cruz (Guatemala), Suaad Abbas Salm (Iraq) and Wazhma Frogh (Afghanistan).

"The honorees are recognised for their outstanding contribution on behalf of women and their societies, and for tackling such issues as domestic violence, forced and child marriage, human trafficking; fighting corruption and demanding government transparency; defending access to justice and the rule of law; and safeguarding equal rights and opportunities for women," the Press Office said.

Najib Cautions Against Blindly Rejecting Globalisation

PUTRAJAYA, March 6 (Bernama) -- Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said today the people, while striving to empower the Malay language, should not be too obsessed with rejecting elements of other civilisations which can enrich the knowledge, technology and culture of the Malays.

He said that in facing globalisation, it was important to have a rational attitude and consideration in harnessing the logical benefits instead of blindly rejecting globalisation.

"It must be remembered that language is the soul of the nation. Mastering foreign languages does not necessarily erode an individual's identity and intellect but will strengthen his identity and love for his nation and language.

"In the context of Malaysia, mastering foreign languages should not be seen as negating the importance of the Malay language itself," he said in his speech at the International Malay Language Debate Final for the Deputy Prime Minister's Trophy at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre, here.

Najib's wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, and Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin were also present at the event.

Najib said that in the ICT era, the Malay language should take advantage of the development of the K-economy to make available sufficient avenues of knowledge for the people.

He said the Malay language should be resilient and resolute enough to steer users of the language along the development of the K-economy in a world which was getting ever more complex.

"At this juncture, it should be acknowledged that the Malay language is still regarded as young in terms of science and technology terminology compared to the English language which is now accepted by the world as the language of ICT," he said.

However, this did not mean that the Malay language would be sidelined, he said and stressed that the government was committed to continuing with the growth of the Malay language in terms of importance and command and would continue to safeguard the Malay language as the premier language of the land.

"Although we give room for the English language in the education system, the government will not back down from its position of ensuring that the Malay language continues to be the official medium of instruction in education in the country," he said.

Meanwhile, Najib proposed that the Higher Education Ministry, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka and publishing companies in the country work together to provide an unending supply of reading and reference material on the various aspects of the Malay, Malaysian and Asean civilisations to selected institutions abroad.

This was to ensure that information on these civilisations and the country reached the international community, he said.

Najib also said that he wanted private institutions of higher learning in the country to be serious in introducing courses on the Malay language and Malay and Malaysian civilisations in their curriculum.

"It has been emphasised in the Education Act 1996 that the three compulsory courses at the private institutions of higher learning, especially for foreign students, are Malay language, Malaysian Studies and religious or moral studies.

"This is because in our effort to become the regional and international centres of excellence in education, we want the basic elements of our civilisation, particularly the Malay language, to be introduced to the international students," he said.

Slumdog 'breaches $200m barrier'

The film mixes romance with gritty scenes of the Mumbai slums

Oscar-winning film Slumdog Millionaire has crossed the $200m (£140m) mark in box office takings around the world, according to figures in Variety.

The film industry daily says the Mumbai-based movie, which cost $15m to make, has now taken $217m at cinemas.

Slumdog is enjoying a further bounce at the box office after picking up eight Oscars at February's Academy Awards.

Fox Searchlight, which released the rags-to-riches tale, said it expects the box office total to exceed $250m.

The company's Steve Gilula told the paper: "It's extraordinary. Very, very few films get past $200 million worldwide."

Slumdog Millionaire returned to the top slot at the UK box office over the first weekend of March.

The move back up from third place came a week after the Oscar ceremony, where the film took best picture and earned Danny Boyle the best director award. -BBC News

Keluarga Kugan seret Hospital Serdang ke polis - Malaysiakini

Keluarga A Kugan, yang mati dalam tahanan polis, hari ini membuat laporan polis berhubung lapan perbezaan terang-terangan antara keputusan bedah siasat pertama dengan kedua.

Ditemani peguam N Surendran, kira-kira 10 ahli keluarga mendiang membuat aduan di Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah (IPD) Petaling Jaya pukul 11 pagi terhadap pengarah dan doktor patologi Hospital Serdang yang mengeluarkan keputusan bedah siasat awal.

Turut hadir ahli parlimen PKR Kapar, S Manikavasagam dan dan ahli parlimen DAP Teluk Intan, M Manogaran.

Laporan bedah siasat kedua di Pusat Perubatan Universiti Malaya (PPUM) mendapati mendiang mati akibat kecederaan dalaman setelah dibelasah dengan teruk sewaktu ditahan di balai polis Taipan, Subang Jaya.

Kugan direman sejak 15 Januari lalu bagi membantu siasatan kes kecurian kereta mewah.

Bedah siasat ulangan dibuat susulan rasa tidak puas hati keluarga Kugan terhadap hasil bedah siasat Hospital Serdang pada 21 Januari lalu yang mendapati punca kematiannya akibat paru-paru berair.

Bedah siasat itu juga mendapati pakar patologi pertama hanya membedah siasat bahagian jantung ke atas dan tidak menyiasat bahagian-bahagian mayat yang lain.

Ia berjaya mengesan tiga kesan kecederaan pada badan mangsa.

Bedah siasat kedua oleh PPUM bagaimanapun mendapati 42 lagi kecederaan, kesan bakar dan calar.

Ia memutuskan, kematian pemuda 22 tahun itu akibat kegagalan buah pinggang selepas aliran darah tersekat.

Perak PR to sue Perak State Legal Adviser

KUALA LUMPUR, March 6 — Perak Pakatan Rakyat will be filing a suit at the Kuala Lumpur High Court in Jalan Duta today at 3pm to stop Perak State Legal Adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid from representing Perak Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar in the Ipoh High Court.

It is believed that prominent lawyer Tommy Thomas will be filing the suit on behalf of Perak PR.

MORE TO COME

Selangor, don't back down on water

Nizar’s case referred to Federal Court

Nizar and Ngeh Koo Ham, a former PKR Perak Exco member, waiting outside the Kuala Lumpur High Court today. - Picture by Choo Choy May

By Debra Chong and Edward Cheah- The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, March 6 — Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin's legal challenge that he is the lawful menteri besar of Perak has been postponed.

The High Court today ruled that the Federal Court must first settle a constitutional question at the heart of Nizar’s judicial review before a judgment can be made on whether Nizar is the lawful MB or not.

High Court judge Justice Lau Bee Lan, of the Appellate and Special Powers Division, made the decision to refer the matter directly to the Federal Court based on advice from the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

She noted that the matter has been referred to the Federal Court as it involves a constitutional interpretation of the Perak State Constitution.

Lau ordered a one-hour break in today’s proceedings to enable the parties involved in the case to help the High Court formulate the question that will be referred to the Federal Court.

Senior Federal Counsel from the A-G’s Chambers Datuk Kamaluddin Md Said told reporters one of the questions concerned the powers of the Perak Sultan.

“For example, whether the Sultan’s powers can be questioned,” he said, referring to Sultan Azlan Shah’s decision to appoint Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir as the menteri besar to replace Nizar.

“If it can be questioned, can his power be challenged?” Kamaluddin added.

Nizar, who was present for the court hearing today, appeared collected — even cheerful — after the judge made the ruling.

He stressed to reporters that the judge had not made a judgment yet on his judicial review.

“The law is supreme. We expect positive decisions. We will now have to formulate a strategy and questions,” he added before leaving with his team of lawyers to form the questions to be referred to the apex court.

Perak State Legal Advisor Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid, who is currently at the centre of controversy for being compelled to represent State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar in a legal dispute in the Ipoh High Court, was not present today.

Ahmad Kamal had previously appeared as counsel for Zambry. He was replaced by his deputy Zulqarnain Hassan.

Murugiah refutes claim Kugan's body was tampered

(New Straits Times) - Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Senator T. Murugiah rubbished claims that A. Kugan's body was tampered with by his family members before the post-mortem.

"The family members were distraught, yes, but I did not see anyone mishandling the body when I was there," he told reporters after meeting residents from Kota Damansara who were unhappy over the construction of a hypermarket in their neighbourhood.

Murugiah said he did not see any pool of blood on the floor as claimed by the Serdang Hospital medical officers.

He also said that he was not aware that the medical officers had been hiding in an adjoining room of the mortuary from the mob of about 50 people as he had been speaking to a doctor whom he declined to name.

Murugiah went on to say that the entire incident had been recorded on video and that the evidence had already been sent for investigation.

"Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail has assured me that he would be looking into the case. We will just leave it to him to reach a decision," he said.

"The truth will eventually prevail," he added.

Murugiah was commenting on the statement by Serdang Hospital director Dr Mohd Norzi Ghazali who alleged that Kugan's body was tampered with by a mob of about 50 relatives and friends at the mortuary before pathologists had conducted the post-mortem. Dr Norzi also alleged that Kugan's fully-clothed body was in a body bag, which had been torn open by the mob.

In their police report later, the medical officers, who said they were hiding in an adjoining room, said they were shocked to see a pool of Kugan's blood on the mortuary floor.

This, the report said, indicated that wounds on Kugan's body could have been inflicted after his death.

The New Straits Times learnt that police had completed their investigation into the incident at the Serdang Hospital mortuary which they had classified as fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of a capital offence.

The charge carries a jail term of up to 20 years and fine.

Pakatan reps and all involved in gathering under tree to be questioned

The Star) - All those involved in the illegal gathering in front of the State Secretariat on Tuesday, including the 28 Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen who held an “emergency sitting” of the state assembly under a tree, will be called by the police to give statements.

State police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Zulkifli Abdullah said that so far two assemblymen had been called to give their statements. He did not name the two.

He said police were also looking for six men to assist in the investigations under Section 27 (5) of the Police Act for illegal assembly.

“More photographs will be released as and when they are available,” he said after witnessing the handing over of duties of the state CID chief from Asst Comm Zulkifli Hassan to Senior Asst Comm (II) Mohd Dzuraidi Ibrahim.

Sought: A combo picture of the six men police are looking for in connection with the illegal assembly.

The Pakatan assemblymen led by Speaker V. Sivakumar had gathered at the State Secretariat to convene the “sitting.”

When they were not allowed into the building, the group proceeded to a vacant lot nearby and conducted the meeting under a tree.

On plans by Pakatan to file a case in court against the police for stopping the assembly sitting, DCP Zulkifli said: “We are a democratic country. If they want to file, go ahead.”

He stressed that police were merely carrying out their duties to ensure peace and harmony.

On another matter, DCP Zulkifli said 13 people had been charged over the ruckus during the swearing-in of new Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abd Kadir in Kuala Kangsar on Feb 6.

Four more – three men and a woman – were charged at the Kuala Kangsar magistrate’s court on Wednesday.

The Sedition Act for Dummies

Actually, my case is very complicating indeed. The police report against me was that I was seditious because I had lied (di ada adakan). Therefore, should not the focus of my trial be on whether I did or did not lie? The government realises that this was a mistake so it is trying to amend the charge without officially amending it.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I am currently on trial for the crime of sedition. It seems, according to Malaysia’s Sedition Act, I have committed a crime. The novel thing about the Sedition Act is that it does not matter whether I had lied or had told the truth. Even if I had not lied and had told the truth it would still tantamount to sedition. Therefore, I can go to jail for telling the truth if the government can prove that the truth I told is seditious. That is the fate that awaits me.

This means the court can block the truth from surfacing. I can’t use the truth as my defence. Therefore, I would not be allowed to adduce any evidence to support what I wrote or said. Never mind if I have evidence that so-and-so were the people behind the Altantuya murder or so-and-so were also present during the murder. This is not crucial to my defence and the court is not interested in seeing this evidence. The question would be: did I write or say what they allege I have written or said? If I did, then I am guilty. Whether I lied or not is not crucial to the charge and the court is not in the least interested in looking at whatever evidence I may have.

Now can you see why they chose to charge me under the Sedition Act as well as for criminal defamation for the second trial? This is so that the truth or falsity of what I wrote and said need not be argued. They only need to focus on whether I did it. This would mean the truth can forever remain suppressed and need never surface during the trial.

If they had instead charged me for making a false declaration or for signing a false Statutory Declaration, then I would need to prove I did not make a false declaration or had signed a false SD. So the truth of what I said and wrote would be very crucial. We would need to get to the bottom of things so that I can defend myself. The truth must be established so that we can prove I had not lied. Alas, this will not be the case because what I have been charged with does not require the truth to be established.

Actually, when they initially brought me in for interrogation, it was for the crime of making a false declaration. They probably realised that this would be suicide in the event I have the evidence to prove I did not make a false declaration. So they changed their mind and instead charged me under the Sedition Act as well as for criminal defamation. This would be safer as the truth of the matter need not be argued and can in fact be blocked from ever surfacing.

Let us look at what the Sedition Act is all about. This is actually a law from the time when the King was appointed by God and could do no wrong. To question the King is tantamount to questioning God and would therefore be an act of sedition. But those were in the days when the King could send you to your death. Today, the King is purely a Constitutional Monarch who does not possess the executive powers of the Kings of days gone by.

In Public Prosecutor vs. Param Cumaraswamy, the sedition charge against Param was:

That you on 24 July 1985 at about 11:00 a.m. at the office of the Selangor and Federal Territory Bar Committee in the old High Court Building, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, uttered seditious words to wit, that part of your press statement as underlined, (the full text of which is attached as Sch. ‘A’ to this charge) and that you have thereby committed an offence under s 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act, 1948 (Revised 1969) and punishable under s 4(1) of the said Act.

The judge in this case was Justice NH Chan, who has now become famous because of his opinion on the Perak Constitutional Crisis where he said that Pakatan Rakyat is on solid legal grounds.

Another case involved Marina Yusof who was alleged to have made a seditious statement during a DAP ceramah in Penang. Marina successfully proved she had not lied but they still found her guilty. This, as I said, is because the truth of the matter is not crucial to the charge. Even if she had told the truth, which was proven she did, she is still guilty.

Because of her age, the court decided to just fine her instead of sending her to jail. She paid the fine and went home. If she had not been over 60 and a grandmother to boot, they would have sent her to jail. And she was found guilty not because she had lied but because she told the truth. But the truth she told was considered seditious.

My defence in my sedition trial, therefore, becomes very dicey indeed. I can’t adduce whatever evidence I have. If I do, I will go to jail. Instead, I will have to allow them to prove that I committed the act. And if they can’t prove that then I will be home free. To admit that I committed the act by attempting to prove that I had not lied and by adducing the evidence I possess means I am confessing to a crime and would therefore lose my case.

Many are hoping that the evidence I have will surface during my trial. The government, however, is clever enough to make sure that it never will. And even if I am prepared to lose my case and risk going to jail by taking the line of defence that I may have done it but I did not lie, the court can still block this evidence as ‘not relevant’ to the case. They can bar me from adducing any evidence unless it involves proving I did not commit the act. If it is about whether I had told the truth or not, then the court does not want to see it.

Sir James Stephen’s definition of sedition found its way into the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast. Section 326 sub-s 8 of the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast, 1936 Revision, c 9, states as follows:

A ‘seditious intention’ is an intention:

(1) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, His heirs or successors or the Government of the Gold Coast as by law established; or

(2) to bring about a change in the sovereignty of the Gold Coast; or

(3) to excite His Majesty’s subjects or inhabitants of the Gold Coast to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in the Gold Coast as by law established; or

(4) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in the Gold Coast; or

(5) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty’s subjects or inhabitants of the Gold Coast; or

(6) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of the Gold Coast:

It is not a seditious intention if:

(a) to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures; or

(b) to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution of the Gold Coast as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the reformation of such errors or defects; or

(c) to persuade His Majesty’s subjects or inhabitants of the Gold Coast to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the Gold Coast as by law established other than that referred to in para (2) of this sub-section; or

(d) to point out with a view to their removal any matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of the Gold Coast.

Provided that none of the acts or things mentioned in provisos (a), (b), (c) and (d) shall be deemed to be lawful if they are done in such manner as to effect or be likely to effect any of the purposes (1) to (6) which are declared in this section to be a seditious intention.

‘Seditious words’ are words expressive of a seditious ‘intention’.

And what, you may ask, is ‘seditious intent’?

In both the Stephen and the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast definitions, an intention to achieve one or more of the objects specified in the definition is an essential ingredient of the crime of sedition. The important question is whether the “intention” must be proved. In article 94 of the Digest (4th Ed) Stephen put it thus:

In determining whether the intention with which any words were spoken, any document was published, or any agreement was made, was or was not seditious, every person must be deemed to intend the consequences, which would naturally follow from his conduct at the time and under the circumstances in which he so conducted himself.

In Wallace-Johnson v The King, counsel for the appellant contended (a) that both in English common law and in the Criminal Code in question there must be some evidence of intention outside the mere words of the instrument before a seditious intention can be said to exist; and (b) that in the present case, when the document is read, there cannot be found in it any seditious intention at all; and therefore before the appellant can be convicted there must be some evidence of seditious intention extrinsically, and, there being none, this conviction cannot stand on any ground.

3. (1) A ‘seditious tendency’ is a tendency:

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;

(b) to excite the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State; or

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or

(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Pt III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-sect. (1) an act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency:

(a) to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures;

(b) to point out errors or defects in any Government or constitution as by law established (except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in para (f) of sub-s (1) otherwise than in relation to the implementation of any provision relating thereto) or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of the errors or defects;

(c) except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in para (f) of sub-sect, (1):

(i) to persuade the subjects of any Rulers or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the territory of such Government as by law established; or

(ii) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of the Federation if the act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

(3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against this Act the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.

Actually, my case is very complicating indeed. The police report against me was that I was seditious because I had lied (di ada adakan). Therefore, should not the focus of my trial be on whether I did or did not lie? The government realises that this was a mistake so it is trying to amend the charge without officially amending it. In other words, they want the court to focus on the seditious act itself (whether I wrote the article) and not on whether the article is true of false (di ada adakan).

But what about the seditious tendency of the act I was alleged to have committed? And what if my intention, assuming I want to take the risk of admitting I wrote the article, was: to point out errors or defects in any Government or constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of the errors or defects? Well, then it will not be seditious in nature and I, therefore, have not committed any crime. But I will have to first admit I wrote that article to explain why I wrote it and this would mean they would be able to nail my balls to the wall.

Sigh…..damned if you admit it and damned if you don’t.

I think I will be a lawyer when I grow up.

Good Luck Mr ‘Going-To-Be’ PM

By Sheih Kickdefella

“The impact of the “Altantuya case” in France, Malaysia and Mongolia has yet to reach its climax. The murder of the 28 year old Mongolian was the result of a “commission” at the price of 114 million Euros by Armaris to its Malaysian counterpart. This “commission,” which was acknowledged by the Malaysian government in front of the Parliament in Kuala Lumpur, has triggered a chain of events that has led to the assassination of Altantuya and the disappearance of several key witnesses in the case.”

“A report from the Malaysian police, written on 19th november 2006 and which has been kept secret until now, reveals dry and precise descriptions as to how this young woman, a member of Asian high society, has been killed. In this document, one of the killers, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx named xxxxx, replied to the questions of an officer at a police station close to the murder scene. “When the Chinese woman saw that I was taking a gun, she begged me to spare her, saying she was pregnant. xxxxx (the commanding officer of xxxxx) grabbed her and [threw] her on the ground. I immediately shot the left side of her face. Then xxxxx took off her clothes and put them in a black plastic bag. xxxxx noticed that her hand was still moving. He ordered me to shoot again, which I did”, said xxxx. This is the first confirmation of Altantuya’s assassins’ identity. “Then we carried her body into the woods. xxxxx wrapped the explosives around her legs, her abdomen and her head, and we exploded her.”

“In March 2005, Altantuya and Baginda departed for Europe, touring France, Germany, Italy and Portugal in the red Ferrari of Baginda, staying in posh hotels and dining in the finest restaurants of the old Continent. This trip, however, was not only for tourism: the contract for the sale of the submarines had been signed in 2002, but important details had yet to be settled. “We knew that Baginda was used by Deputy Prime minister Najib Razak as an intermediary for weapons systems deals, especially the high level ones,” says a regional security affairs expert.”

“At the end of March 2005 the couple was in Paris, where they met with Najib Razak. A picture shows the threesome in a Parisian private club. “Tuya showed me the pix. She said that one of the men was her boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda, and the other the “big boss”, Najib Razak. I asked her if they were brothers because of the names, but she said no, and that Najib Razak was the ‘prime minister’”, said Amy, Altantuya’s best friend (Najib Razak has sworn on the Koran that he has never met Altantuya). According to a private detective, now in hiding in India, the beautiful Tuya was also the occasional mistress of the deputy Prime minister, who was introduced to her by Baginda at the end of 2004.”

Above are the English translation of some extract from the article published in a French Newspaper, 5 May 2009.

Read the full translation here.

Read he original cautioned statement that Sirul Azhar Omar here.

Razaleigh calls for fresh polls in Perak

Business Times, Singapore
06 Mar 2009

Razaleigh calls for fresh polls in Perak
He says this may be an elegant way out of the political impasse

By S JAYASANKARAN
IN KUALA LUMPUR

BARISAN Nasional lawmaker and former finance minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has added his voice to a growing chorus of Malaysians demanding fresh elections in Perak state to resolve its month-long political impasse.

‘I think that constitutional rule in Perak has collapsed and the only way to rectify the situation is to go back to the people,’ Tengku Razaleigh told BT in an exclusive interview yesterday. ‘That would be the appropriate thing for the ruler to do.’

The reference is to Sultan Azlan Shah, the state’s monarch who, on Feb 2, rejected a request by Perak’s then chief minister Nizar Jamaluddin - of the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) opposition alliance - to dissolve the state’s assembly and pave the way for fresh polls.
Mr Nizar made the request after his government was toppled when three of his representatives defected to become independents supportive of the Barisan Nasional (BN).

Sultan Azlan decided that, to his mind, the BN held the majority in the assembly (31-28) and so appointed Zambry Kadir from the dominant United Malays National Organisation (Umno) as the state’s new chief minister.

Things have got worse since. On Tuesday, Mr Sivakumar called for an emergency sitting of the assembly but was barred by the civil service and the police. Undeterred, he convened the meeting under a tree.

The House’s meeting which was boycotted by all BN representatives decided - unanimously - that Mr Nizar commanded the confidence of the House and that he should request the Sultan for the assembly’s dissolution - again!

Meanwhile, BN reps had rushed to court which gave them an injunction prohibiting Mr Sivakumar from holding further meetings. But it isn’t clear if the meeting under the tree was invalid - if it was, the order would have had to be retrospective which is unheard of. That implied that Dr Zambry was, indeed, suspended and that the state had drifted into a constitutional black hole.

Both the BN and the opposition have vowed fresh court cases but the problem may not be easily resolved. Most of the calls for fresh polls - except for anonymous commentators on Internet websites - generally tip-toe around the episode’s background for fear of offending either the Sultan or the BN

Tengku Razaleigh didn’t have any such compunction. To be sure, he has the gravitas to carry off such a statement - some quarters might consider it lese- majeste - because he is a royal himself, being the uncle of the Sultan of Kelantan. In addition, he is an elder statesman of Umno, having narrowly lost its presidency in 1987 to former premier Mahathir Mohamad by a scant 44 votes.

Why did he think elections weren’t called? ‘The chances are that we (the BN) will lose badly in Perak,’ said the Kelantan prince. ‘That seems to be why they are reluctant to have the Sultan dissolve the assembly.’

‘This is not good and I fear for the future,’ continued Tengku Razaleigh. ‘I have no claim for the throne anywhere so I can be frank but I would like to see the monarchy strong. It’s unfortunate that it happened the way it did in Perak. But still it depends on what he (the Sultan) will do next.’

For Tengku Razaleigh, the solution is simple. ‘The rakyat (people) of Perak are his subjects,’ he said, referring to Perak’s monarch. ‘So in the end, he has to side with his people.’

In fact, Tengku Razaleigh thinks that Umno should take the lead in the matter. ‘Umno should be magnanimous and be the first to call for elections,’ he noted. ‘It would be an elegant solution and it would certainly save the Ruler further embarrassment.’

‘It may not be good for Barisan but we have no choice,’ he said. ‘We can’t go on with this impasse.’