Wednesday, February 22, 2017

HRD Lena Hendry found Guilty - A Sad day for Human Rights?

On 21/2/2017, Human Rights Defender, Lena Hendry, has been found GUILTY by the Magistrate Court, and another date was fixed for sentencing.  The charge under Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 carries a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to RM30,000 or both if convicted..




See earlier related posts:- 

ARTICLE 19, ALIRAN, PROHAM, NUBE,WH4C & 111 Others say Drop Charges against Lena Hendry

Lena Hendry - Drop Charges says ICJ, Article 19, FIDH, Front Line, OMCT & 116 other groups

HR Defender Lena Hendry Acquitted by Court - Draconian law remains..?


Remember:-

On 10/3/2016, she was acquitted by the Magistrate Court 

Activist Lena Hendry has been acquitted of the charge of screening a film on the Sri Lankan killing fields, which had not been approved by the Censorship Board.... "The magistrate has found that the prosecution has failed to prove a prima facie case against her (Hendry) and has therefore acquitted her,...
But the government did not let go, and the prosecution appealed to the High Court...and on 21/9/2016, the High Court allowed the appeal, and
Judicial Commissioner Shariff Abu Samah set aside the Magistrate Court’s order which acquitted Lena in March at the end of the prosecution’s case...The High Court ordered Lena Hendry, an activist, to enter defence
Not sure whether there was an appeal to the Court of Appeal, but in any event , the trial at the Magistrate's Court continued, and Lena Hendry has now been found guilty...


Tuesday, 21 February 2017 | MYT 4:48 PM

Activist Lena Hendry disappointed over conviction




KUALA LUMPUR: Activist Lena Hendry was convicted by a magistrate's court over the charge of screening a Sri Lankan civil war documentary that had not been approved by the Censorship Board.

Hendry, 32, who stood expressionless in the dock upon hearing the verdict, said she was disappointed with the judgment.

"We will definitely appeal. No proof to convict me," Hendry, who was accompanied by her lawyer New Sin Yew, told reporters here Tuesday.

Her well-wishers, friends and supporters surrounded her after the judgment, and they hugged and consoled her.

A supporter of her was holding a placard saying "Human Rights Documentaries are not dangerous".

One of those present in the public gallery was Ivy Josiah, who is Hakam's (National Human Rights Society) exco member and former executive director of Women Aid Organisation.

Josiah said she was disappointed over the ruling, saying that "the film had been shown everywhere in the world."

In his judgment, magistrate Mohd Rehan Mohd Aris ruled that the defence had failed to raise reasonable doubts in the case.

"The accused is found guilty," he told the packed courtroom.

Mohd Rehan ordered both parties to file their respective submissions and set March 22 for sentencing.
He also extended Hendry's bail of RM1,000 pending disposal of the case.

A High Court had on Sept 21, 2016 set aside an acquittal order against Hendry and ordered her to enter her defence over the charge.

In reversing her acquittal order, Judicial Commissioner Mohamad Shariff Abu Samah found that there was a prima facie case against Hendry.

Mohd Rehan had on March 10 last year acquitted Hendry after ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against her at the end of their case.

A total of eight prosecution witnesses and three defence witnesses, including Hendry, had given sworn evidence in the trial. 

Hendry, who was also the programme coordinator for a human rights group Pusat Komas, claimed trial in a magistrate’s court on Sept 19, 2013 to illegally screening the documentary “No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka".

The film directed by British national Callum Macrae explores the alleged oppression by the Sri Lankan government of Tamils in the island nation.

She was said to have committed the offence at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall at Jalan Maharajalela here at 9pm on July 3, 2013.  

The charge under Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 carries a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to RM30,000 or both if convicted. DPP Nurakmal Farhan Aziz prosecuted the case

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/02/21/activist-lena-hendry-disappointed-over-conviction/#Cr0umC5heUWR3EFs.99
RESPONSES

21 February 2017
Conviction of Lena Hendry Another Blow to Freedom of Expression!
Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) finds the decision to convict Lena Hendry by the magistrate court under Section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Board regrettable and flawed in nature.
The absence of adequate evidence led to Lena’s initial accquital was sound as there was a lack of evidence on part of the prosecution in their charges. The subsequent conviction of Lena on 21st February depart from this and utilized the flawed system in Malaysia which undo the presumption of innocence that serve as the foundation of any common law based criminal justice system. Convicting the defense based on their inability to prove beyond reasonable doubt of their innocence remains a blatant trangression against the right to fair trial and Lena’s conviction marks another injustice by the Malaysian criminal justice system.
On top of the manifest injustice in her conviction, the attempt to punish an individual for screening a documentary is reprehensible on many levels. A documentary is often made to serve as a historical record of an event that transpired and leaves a legacy or story that can be viewed by the future generations. Censoring or preventing documentaries from being screened does not protect the public but only serve to protect select groups by hiding an inconvinient truth and deprive future generations of important knowledge on history.

Furthermore an attempt to punish an individual for allegedly screening ‘No Fire Zone’ is contemptible to say the least as the act of preventing the screening tantamounts to protecting those who may have committed crime against humanity. if the Malaysian government seeks to protect others against genocide and crime against humanity, why is it now complicit in protecting those who may have commited crime against humanity.

SUARAM reiterate our strongest condemnation against the repression of freedom of expression by the Malaysian government and stand in solidarity with Lena Hendry in her fight for human rights and democracy!

In Solidarity
Sevan Doraisamy
Executive Director
SUARAM

Malaysia: Convicted for Showing a Film
Prosecution of Lena Hendry Violates Right to Free Expression

(Bangkok, February 22, 2017) – A Malaysian court’s conviction of rights activist Lena Hendry for her role in showing a documentary film violates her right to freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today. On February 21, 2017, a Kuala Lumpur court found Hendry guilty of organizing a private screening of the award-winning human rights documentary, “No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka,” without censorship board approval nearly four years ago. She will be sentenced on March 22, and faces fines and up to three years in prison.

“It’s an outrageous assault on basic free expression that Lena Hendry could go to prison for helping to show a documentary film,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “This prosecution is part of the Malaysian government’s disturbing pattern of harassment and intimidation of those seeking to raise public awareness of human rights issues.”

Hendry, a former staff member of the human rights group Pusat KOMAS, was convicted under section 6 of Malaysia’s Film Censorship Act, which prohibits the “circulation, distribution, display, production, sale, hire” or “possession” of any film, whether imported or domestically produced, without first obtaining approval from the government-appointed Board of Censors. Malaysia’s highest court
rejected a constitutional challenge to the law in September 2015. A magistrate acquitted her of the charge in March 2016, finding that the government had failed to make a basic case showing her guilt. On September 21, 2016, the High Court reversed Hendry’s acquittal and ordered a resumption of the case after the government appealed.

Bringing criminal penalties for possessing or privately showing a film without government approval violates freedom of expression by imposing a disproportionate burden on a fundamental right, Human Rights Watch said.

The Film Censorship Act is rarely invoked, and Pusat KOMAS regularly screens films on politics, human rights, culture, and other issues without censorship board approval, with admission by pre-registration only.

The prosecution in this case appears to have been motivated by the Malaysian government’s desire to appease Sri Lankan embassy officials, who had publicly demanded that the film not be shown and visited the venue on the day of the film’s showing to urge the venue’s managers to cancel the event. “No Fire Zone” tells the story of war crimes committed in the last months of Sri Lanka’s civil war in 2009, including Sri Lankan army shelling that indiscriminately killed thousands of civilians and the extrajudicial executions of captured fighters and supporters of the secessionist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

“The Film Censorship Act violates rights by giving the government the power to arbitrarily suppress films it doesn’t want Malaysians to see, and to prosecute those who dare to show them,” Robertson said. “Malaysia should scrap this draconian law’s criminal penalties, revise it to comply with international rights standards, and allow Malaysian citizens to view films of their choosing.”

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Malaysia, please visit: https://www.hrw.org/asia/malaysia

Penyata Cetak Bank DiPos Amat perlu oleh Rakyat Malaysia? Hak dinafikan tanpa persetujuan terdahulu penguna?

Penyata Cetak Akaun Bank yang dihantar setiap hari oleh Maybank nampaknya sudah tiada - kini mereka mahu kita layari internet dan dapatkan penyata secara sendiri...Kalau penguna secara khusus tak setuju, ini salah? Atau adakah kerajaan UMNO-BN secara salah membenarkan ini?

Please be informed that Maybank will no longer be mailing any hard copy bank statements to customers. You can now conveniently access your e-Statement (online statement) via Maybank2u and receive via your registered e-mail address. With e-Statement, you can view, download or print your bank statements anytime.- Maybank2u.com
Tindakan tak wajar dan tidak mengambil kira hakikat rakyat Malaysia...

Berapa orang sebenarnya mempunyai akses kepada internet? Dan juga printer? 

Kini ramai memilih untuk membuka akaun bank, di mana mereka akan dibekalkan penyata cetak melalui pos ... Jika tidak mahu penyata bulanan, mereka akan hanya buka akaun simpanan sahaja - di mana untuk ini hanya ada buku akaun sahaja...nak update kena pi bank dan update...Sekarang kena cari bank baru, yang akan terus memberikan penyata akaun cetak setiap bulan. Atau adakah ini tindakan kerajaan UMNO-BN yang 'memaksa' semua bank memberhentikan penghantaran penyata cetak?

Jika penguna 'internet banking' sahaja tidak dihantar penyata bulanan melalui pos - mungkin boleh terima...Tetapi, untuk ramai orang, penyata bank cetak ini penting - untuk pasti gaji masuk, untuk pastikan duit pencen masuk, untuk memastikan dividend pelaburan saham masuk, memastikan anak ada masuk wang dalam akaun bank,....kini, ada pula 'auto-pay' banyak bil - ini bererti pihak pembekal akan terus potong dari akaun bank anda, kini ada pula Visa 'pay wave' - jadi kena pastikan juga tak ada wang yang tak dibelanjakan tidak terkeluar dari akaun...Jika membayar melalui cek, nak pastikan cek tersebut sudah diterima dan ditunaikan....

Saya sendiri yang biasa guna komputer dan internet - tetapi memilih untuk tidak mengunakan 'phone banking' atau 'internet banking'...kan, itu pilihan penguna...Saya mahu penyata cetak kerana senang dibaca dan seterusnya disimpan dalam fail...Ada ramai yang tak suka baca dikomputer atau 'smart phone' - lebih gemar baca dokumen cetak...[Berapa ramai ada Printer di rumah untuk cetak, ingat banyak majikan tak akan benarkan pekerja mencetak di tempat kerja dokumen peribadi...malah ada juga majikan yang menghalang pengunaan komputer tempat kerja untuk urusan peribadi...]

Warga tua juga bergantung kepada penyata akaun ini, peniaga pun bergantung kepada penyata akaun ini...yang biasa disimpan dalam fail...Perbandingan penyata akaun dengan rekod sendiri juga senang ada penyata bank cetak ditangan...

Taktik 'berhenti hantar penyata cetak' - sangat menyusahkan rakyat dan penguna - kini tak ada penyata...sukar untuk kita pastikan apa-apa salah laku berlaku...kenapa? Oh tak ada internet..tak tahu guna internet dan komputer...dan juga tak ada PRINTER untuk cetak dan periksa dan simpan...Penguna, bila menyimpan wang dalam sesuatu bank, mahukan faedah(tapi faedah pun kini di Malaysia terlampau rendah) dan mereka mahukan perkhidmatan(mendapat penyata bercetak setiap bulan...dan kemudahan mengeluarkan wang dengan senang, atau buat urusan wang yang lain...Bila masuk perjanjian dengan bank, bank kata akan hantar penyata bercetak setiap bulan - kini bank 'pecah kontrak' tanpa persetujuan khusus penguna?


PERJANJIAN DI ANTARA BANK DAN PENGUNA senang sahaja secara salah diubah satu pihak - iaitu bank? Bukankah ini salah? Ini tak boleh...sebab jika mahu menukar perjanjian, perlu persetujuan kedua-dua pihak...

Kini bank telah memecah kontrak tanpa persetujuan 'penguna' - salah...

Kini nampaknya, Bank macam mahu PAKSA rakyat bersetuju secara tidak langsung, 'memaksa' penguna setuju tidak mahu terima penyata bercetak melalui pos...kalau tak setuju, kamu tak boleh pun dapat penyata melalui emel...Lihat langkah ke-3 untuk mendapatkan penyata melalui emel dibawah...
Registration via email:
STEP 1: Login to M2U.
STEP 2: Select "Bills & Statements" and then "Statements".
STEP 3: If you are a first time user, you will be prompted to "Accept Stop Hardcopy notification". Click Accept.
STEP 4: Click "Email Statement Delivery", enter and confirm password, select the desired Account and enter your e-mail address. Click Continue.
STEP 5: Click ‘Confirm' to complete registration.- Maybank2u.com
Mengenakan syarat sebegini adalah salah. Menurut pendapat saya, hak menerima penyata cetak melalui pos harus dihormati - Jika pengguna mahu guna cara lain untuk melihat akaun mereka, sama ada secara 'online' atau untuk mendapat penyata menerusi emel, itu hak tambahan...Hak sedia ada tak harus dilepaskan...


Sebab lain mengapa penyata cetak yang dijana Maybank diperlukan? Ia merupakan dokumen yang jelas dikeluarkan Maybank - boleh digunakan sebagai bukti untuk apa-apa tuntutan... Penyata ONLINE dicetak hitam puteh oleh 'pengguna' mungkin tidak akan diterima sebagai bukti di Mahkamah atau oleh pihak lain? Boleh pula dakwaan timbul, ia bukan dokumen yang dijana Maybank...Maklumat Online boleh juga kena 'hack' atau ditukar bila-bila masa...Bank sendiri boleh tukar...justeru penyata janaan Maybank yang dicetak Maybank sendiri adalah bukti terkuat...dan tidak boleh dipertikaikan oleh bank tersebut pun kemudian hari...? [Berapa orang ada akses kepada Printer? Kos Printer, Kertas dan Dakwat Printer semua ditanggung pengguna. Kalau mahu cetak dokumen dikedai - kos kini tak kurang daripada RM2 satu muka surat, itu pun hitam putih bukan warna...]

Mereka yang telah dahulu ditanya dan telah jelas setuju tidak mahu terima penyata cetak terus dari Maybank, bank tersebut bolehlah hantar penyata melalui emel atau cara lain...saperti mana dipersetujui kedua-dua pihak, bank dan pengguna..

Kini penyata bulanan tak sampai beberapa bulan, bila mahu lihat penyata dilaman, mereka kata 'setuju dulu tak mahu lagi terima penyata cetak melalui pos biasa' - tak adil.

Kini simpan wang dalam bank, faedah terlalu rendah - kini penyata bulanan pun tak mahu dihantar melalui pos...

Kini ramai terpaksa minta pihak bank untuk akaun cetak, kemungkinan bank pula akan kenakan caj...Saya berpendirian bahawa bank seharusnya tidak mengenakan apa-apa caj untuk permintaan kini untuk penyata cetak bulanan...

Harus diingat, ATM pun kini tak boleh dapat lihat atau cetak penyata akaun bulanan...yang dapat dilihat pun disetengah bank hanya 'Mini Statement' ...untuk beberapa transaksi terkini untuk jangkamasa tertentu...ATM pun kini tak wujud disemua tempat ...kini ramai kena pi bandar untuk guna ATM. Tambahan pula, kini setengah bank sedang tutup cawangan dibandar-bandar kecil...

Kerajaan harus serta merta memastikan semua bank menghantar kepada semua penguna penyata cetak melalui pos untuk setiap bulan hingga kini mulai masa bank berhenti berbuat demikian...

Bank, seterusnya mesti mendapat persetujuan bertandatangan dari penguna, jika mereka mahu berhenti penyata bercetak janaan Bank melalui pos.. Kalau tak dapat persetujuan, bank harus terus penghantaran penyata cetak melalui pos...[Mungkin setengah mungkin setuju tak perlu hantar setiap bulan, 3 bulan sekali OK...}. Bagi penguna akan datang syarat perjanjian jika kata penyata hanya boleh dilihat online atau akan dihantar melalui emel, dan penguna setuju...itu OK. 

Saya percaya bahawa penguna baru (dan sedia ada) ramai akan tukar kepada bank yang terus akan menghantar penyata cetak melalui pos. Kerajaan atau Bank Negara harus tidak memaksa bank berhentikan perkhidmatan(atau perkhidmatan baru)  yang bank mahu berikan kepada penguna...itu hak bank...

Mengapa ini berlaku? Mahu jimat wang - kerana ada bank milikan kerajaan atau kroni hadapi masalah berkaitan dengan 1MDB, RM2 billion dalam akaun peribadi Najib, penurunan nilai ringgit....? 


Mengapa ini berlaku? Mahu jimat kertas - GST kini semua kena berikan resit panjang kepada penguna...Tak logik.

Mungkin Menteri, MP dan 'yang kaya' ada komputer dirumah, internet dan juga mesin cetak warna...senang untuk mereka - tapi fikirkan RAKYAT yang tidak ada semua ini, yang kurang pendapatan... Yang miskin kini tak tahu pun berapa wang masuk dan keluar dan untuk apa...Pegerakan wang dalam akaun bank mereka kini 'tersembunyi' - senang pula mereka ditipu...Adakah ini hasrat kerajaan UMNO-BN.

Kalau, di Thailand, Bank buka sampai malam - senang orang pi buat urusan bank - tak payah pi bank masa kerja? Di negara lain, nak update buku akaun pun senang boleh dibuat dimesin ATM...Mesin ATM yang boleh deposit cek atau wang tunai berada di banyak lokasi - di Malaysia kini hanya ATM dibanyak lokasi - hanya untuk keluar wang atau buat 'bayaran' online mengunakan wang sedia ada dalam akaun - setiap lokasi pun kebanyakkan di bandar saja???

Tindakan berhenti menghantar penyata cetak bulanan kepada penguna melalui pos menyusahkan rakyat - Adakah UMNO-BN peduli? Adakah parti pembangkang peduli? Ingatlah mereka yang kurang berpendatan, warga tua, dll..    

 



Monday, February 20, 2017

Philippines: House of Representatives must uphold international law obligations ahead of first death penalty vote



JOINT STATEMENT

19 February 2017

Philippines: House of Representatives must uphold international law obligations ahead of first death penalty vote

Ahead of the first vote on the proposed legislative amendments to reintroduce the death penalty in the Philippines, the undersigned organizations are calling on the country’s lawmakers to uphold its international law obligations and vote against the measure. The move would set the Philippines against its positive achievements in this area and the global trend towards abolition of the death penalty.

On 20 February the House of Representatives of the Philippines is expected to vote on a Bill to reintroduce the death penalty for a wide range of offences. The move would violate the country’s intended obligations under international law. In 2007 the Philippines ratified the Second Optional Protocol of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights that categorically prohibits executions and commits the country to the abolition of this punishment. These obligations cannot be withdrawn at any time.

We remain concerned at the “U turn” that the present administration is proposing for the country on the issue of the death penalty. Since its abolition of the death penalty − for the second time − in 2006, the Philippines has been a strong advocate of the abolition of the death penalty and has championed several initiatives to this aim in international forums. It has also worked to commute the death sentences imposed on Filipino nationals abroad, such as overseas workers. The legal assistance and political pressure that the authorities of the Philippines have provided to those facing this punishment in other countries has undoubtedly contributed to the protection of their rights, including the right to a fair trial, and could become ineffective if moves were made to re-introduce this penalty back home.

As of today, 141 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice; several governments are taking steps to repeal this punishment from national law.

The reasons countries abolish the death penalty are many and include the fact that there is no evidence that killing by the state deters crime, and much evidence to the contrary; that the death penalty invariably discriminates against the poor and disadvantaged, and that society and the state are seriously harmed and brutalised by descending to the act of killing prisoners.

A move to reintroduce this punishment would set the Philippines starkly against the global trend towards abolition. We oppose the death penalty in all cases and under any circumstances as a violation of the right to life, recognized by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; and as the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

We renew our call on the members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines to ensure its international commitments are respected and the Bill to reintroduce the death penalty is rejected.

This statement is signed by:

ACAT-Philippines
ADPAN-Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network
Amnesty International
Death Penalty Focus
ECPM-Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort
FIACAT-Federation of Actions of Christians for the Abolition of Torture
FIDH-International Federation for Human Rights
MADPET-Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture
Reprieve-Australia

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Keadilan boleh dicapai pekerja jika ada kesangguppan berjuang? Sumbangan KWSP?

Jika mahu berjuang untuk hak asasi dan keadilan, pekerja boleh berjaya...Bila hak dicabul, merunggut sahaja tidak menyelesaikan masalah...yang penting adalah terus berjuang sehingga keadilan di capai...

Di dalam kes, majikan gagal membayar sumbangan KWSP ...dan satu halangan menjadi surat keluaran KWSP sendiri ...kebanyakkan orang akan terus 'menyerah' kerana KWSP sendiri nampaknya menyatakan majikan tak buat salah....tetapi pekerja ini teruskan perjuangan...dan akhirnya mencapai kemenangan...surat KWSP itu tidak menyatakan apa yang benar..

"..Majikan telah menggunakan surat daripada pegawai KWSP sebagai kata muktamad dalam rundingan itu. Dalam surat tersebut, pegawai KWSP menyokong tindakan majikan yang menegaskan perkongsian untung yang dibayar tidak perlu dicarumkan dalam KWSP. Apabila pihak pekerja membawa surat itu ke KWSP cawangan Batu Caves sebagai tujuan pengesahan, pihak pegawai di sana menekankan bahawa surat berkenaan tidak sepatutnya dikeluarkan kerana ianya bercanggah sama sekali dengan akta KWSP..."
In satu contoh bagaimana perjuangan bukan senang tetapi jika kita teruskan perjuangan dengan keyakinan tanpa perasaan takut...keadilan boleh dicapai. Perjuangan seorang mungkin senang ditangkis - tetapi perjuangan yang mempunyai sokongan dan solidariti ramai...sukar diketepikan. 

Tak ada kesatuan sekerja, tetapi pekerja kilang ini telah 'Organize" dan berjaya ramai pekerja untuk berjuang mendapatkan keadilan dan akhirnya dapat...

Pengalaman ini memberikan kita inspirasi ...memberikan kita keyakinan bahawa bukan mustahil menang dalam perjuangan menentang majikan atau mereka kuat...Hanya perlukan komitmen dan kesanggupan akan berjuang bersungguh-sungguh, tanpa takut ... 




Pekerja Kilang Ais Meraikan Kemenangan

Pekerja Kilang Ais Meraikan Kemenangan

Posted by trotsky1917
PEKERJA KILANG ATLAS EDIBLE AIS DI KEPONG DAN BATU CAVES MERAIKAN KEMENANGAN DALAM PERJUANGAN MENUNTUT CARUMAN KWSP KE ATAS KOMISEN
Hampir RM800,000 berjaya dituntut oleh 100 pekerja Kilang Atlas Edible Ais di Kepong dan Batu Caves!

RM5 juta yang dilesapkan oleh majikan daripada 23 cawangan Kilang Atlas Edible Ais di Lembah Kelang, Selangor dan Negeri Sembilan berjaya dituntut!

Lebih 1000 pekerja daripada 23 cawangan mendapat manfaat.

Pemotongan bulanan caruman KWSP untuk komisen berjaya dituntut!

Dengan solidariti dan kepimpinan yang mantap, pekerja mampu menang!

Pada 18hb. Februari yang lalu, Persatuan Pekerja Kilang Atlas Edible Ais Kepong dan Batu Caves menganjurkan majlis jamuan di perkarangan kilang untuk meraikan kemenangan mereka dalam perjuangan menuntut hak ke atas pemotongan caruman KWSP ke atas komisen.

Pada bulan Ogos 2016, pihak KWSP telah memaklumkan kepada Jawatankuasa Pekerja Atlas Ais Kepong dan Batu Caves bahawa majikan Kilang Atlas Edible Ais telah didapati bersalah akibat tidak mencarum KWSP untuk komisen, dan dengan itu KWSP akan menuntut supaya pembayaran caruman tidak dibayar selama ini dibayar balik ke tabung KWSP pekerja.

Ini adalah kejayaan kepada perjuangan pekerja Atlas Ais di cawangan Kepong dan Batu Caves, hasil pembinaan solidariti pekerja, serta perjuangan mereka untuk mendedahkan penipuan serta menuntut hak pekerja. Kejayaan ini juga memberikan manfaat kepada pekerja Kilang Atlas Edible Ais di cawangan-cawangan yang lain.

Dengan kejayaan ini, KWSP telah memaklumkan bahawa majikan akan membayar hampir RM800,000 ringgit ke tabung KWSP pekerja untuk seramai 100 orang pekerja Atlas Ais di Kepong dan Batu Caves. Pihak KWSP juga telah memaklumkan bahawa mereka juga telah menuntut majikan kilang Atlas Ais untuk membuat pembayaran hampir RM5 juta untuk 23 cawangan lain di kawasan Lembah Kelang dan Negeri Sembilan.

Kejayaan ini juga telah merangsang pekerja Kilang Atlas Edible Ais menubuhkan Jawatankuasa pekerja serta Persatuan Pekerja untuk terus membina solidariti pekerja serta memperjuangan hak dan kebajikan pekerja. Sosialis Alternatif telah bersama dengan pekerja Atlas untuk membina dan memantapkan perjuangan tersebut.

LATAR BELAKANG PERJUANGAN

Kejayaan ini adalah susulan daripada protes dan aduan pekerja di KWSP pada bulan Jun 2016 yang lepas, di mana lebih 80 pekerja Atlas Edible Ice Sdn Bhd, cawangan Kepong dan Batu Caves turun untuk membantah komplot majikan dan pegawai KWSP dalam penipuan ke atas caruman KWSP ke atas komisen. Dengan berbekalkan sepanduk, kain rentang seperti “Lebih 20 Tahun Majikan Tipu Pekerja”, “Jutaan Ringgit Dari Akaun KWSP Pekerja Lesap “ dan sebagainya, para pekerja turun membantah komplot dan penipuan majikan di Bangunan Ibu Pejabat KWSP Jalan Raja Laut, Kuala Lumpur.

Para pekerja yang terlibat adalah terdiri daripada pemandu dan pembantu lori yang memasarkan dan menghantar ais ke seluruh restoran di sekitar Lembah Klang. Dengan penghantaran an pemasaran ais, mereka akan memperoleh komisen berdasarkan jumlah jualan harian (dalam tan). Manakala bayaran komisen pula akan dibuat secara bulanan berdasarkan jumlah berat yang terkumpul.

Seksyen 2 Akta KWSP menetapkan bahawa “Semua saraan dalam bentuk wang yang kena dibayar kepada pekerja di bawah kontrak perkhidmatan atau perantisan sama ada ia dipersetujui untuk dibayar secara bulanan, mingguan, harian atau selainnya. Antara bayaran yang dikenakan caruman KWSP: Gaji , Bayaran bagi cuti rehat tahunan dan cuti sakit yang tidak digunakan, Bonus, Elaun, Komisen, Insentif, Tunggakan upah, Upah bagi cuti bersalin, Upah bagi cuti belajar, Upah bagi cuti separuh gaji dan bayaran-bayaran lain di bawah kontrak perkhidmatan atau sebaliknya.”

Namun, selama ini majikan di Atlas Edible Ice tidak membuat caruman untuk komisen berkenaan. Tambahan pula, majikan dengan sengaja menukar dari komisen ke ‘perkongsian untung’ hanya selepas tahun 2006 tanpa pengetahuan pekerja sedangkan bidang pekerjaan masih sama. Tindakan tersebut menjelaskan bahawa majikan bukan sahaja tidak mencarum, malah satu penipuan yang dirancang teliti telah berlaku sekian lama.

Isu penyelewengan yang sama juga pernah berlaku di Atlas cawangan Nilai, dan akibat didesak oleh para pekerja Nilai akhirnya majikan bersetuju untuk membuat pembayaran secara tunai. Majikan terpaksa membuat perjanjian pembayaran secara tunai pada November 2015 terhadap duit caruman KWSP ke atas komisen yang tidak dibayar dengan syarat perkara itu tidak tersebar ke cawangan Atlas lain. Akibat pendedahan dan tuntutan pekerja Atlas Nilai, majikan juga telah mula mencarum KWSP untuk komisen di Atlas cawangan Nilai pada bulan Mei 2015, dan di cawangan-cawangan lain pada bulan Oktober 2015.

Malangnya, para pekerja turut mendapati terdapat usaha komplot dalaman daripada pegawai KWSP dengan pihak majikan. Para pekerja Kepong dan Batu Caves telah melakukan dua rundingan dengan majikan mengenai caruman yang tidak dibayar. Majikan telah menggunakan surat daripada pegawai KWSP sebagai kata muktamad dalam rundingan itu. Dalam surat tersebut, pegawai KWSP menyokong tindakan majikan yang menegaskan perkongsian untung yang dibayar tidak perlu dicarumkan dalam KWSP. Apabila pihak pekerja membawa surat itu ke KWSP cawangan Batu Caves sebagai tujuan pengesahan, pihak pegawai di sana menekankan bahawa surat berkenaan tidak sepatutnya dikeluarkan kerana ianya bercanggah sama sekali dengan akta KWSP.

Walaupun para pekerja menyatakan kesahihan surat itu boleh dipertikaikan, majikan tetap berkeras menganggap ianya adalah muktamad dan menggelak untuk bertanggungjawab terhadap caruman pekerja. Yang dikesali, pegawai KWSP yang sepatutnya berada di pihak pekerja dalam membuat keputusan tetapi tidak berbuat demikian dan berkomplot dengan pihak majikan dalam penipuan ke atas duit saraan hari tua pekerja.

Justeru itu, pihak pekerja mendesak pihak KWSP menyiasat pegawai yang mengeluarkan surat tersebut dan tindakan yang tegas diambil terhadap majikan yang ingkar dan melanggar undang-undang yang telah ditetapkan. Jawatankuasa pekerja juga telah membawa isu ini untuk perhatian dan tindakan SPRM, Kementerian Sumber Manusia, Jabatan Tenaga Kerja Semenanjung Malaysia, Biro Pengaduan Awam, Suhakam dan MTUC. Akibat tindakan dan tuntutan pekerja, pihak KWSP telah membuat siasatan terhadap aduan pekerja dan memutuskan bahawa majikan bersalah dan pembayaran harus dibuat ke tabung pekerja oleh majikan.

Kejayaan ini menjelaskan bahawa pekerja mampu menang jika bersatu di bawah sebuah kepimpinan yang bertindak untuk hak dan kebajikan pekerja. Syabas kepada Jawatankuasa pekerja dan semua warga pekerja Atlas Kepong dan Batu Caves yang berjaya menegakkan hak pekerja. Perjuangan seumpama ini mampu dibina oleh para pekerja lain dengan membina solidariti dan kepimpinan pekerja. Kesatuan sekerja yang masih lemah di negara ini juga harus dibina melalui pembinaan kepimpinan yang memihak kepada pekerja serta penglibatan secara aktif dalam perjuangan pekerja.

BERSATU TEGUH BERCERAI ROBOH…MANTAPKAN KEPIMPINAN DAN ORGANISASI PEKERJA, TERUSKAN PERJUANGAN!

Sumber: Laman WebSosialis Alternative

Friday, February 17, 2017

Malaysia: End impunity for unlawful deaths in custody (Amnesty International)



AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT
15 February 2017
ASA 28/5698/2017


Malaysia: End impunity for unlawful deaths in custody

The Malaysian authorities must immediately order an independent and impartial investigation into the recent death of a 44 year old man in police custody and address the alarming number of deaths in detention and the lack of adequate investigations into possible human rights violations involved in such. At stake are two of the key human rights, which are non-derogable under international human rights law, namely the right to life and freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

On 6 February 2017, S Balamurugan was arrested with two of his friends for burglary. The following day, he was brought to court for a remand hearing. S Balamurungan’s lawyer stated in a police report that he could not walk and that he was bleeding severely from his mouth during his appearance in court. The presiding Magistrate rejected the police officers’ request to remand S Balamurugan in police custody and ordered that he be released and sent to a hospital for medical treatment.
 
However, the police appear to have failed to comply with the Magistrate’s orders.When his family went to the North Klang Police Station later that day to wait for his release, they were informed that S Balamurugan had been re-arrested. The day after, his family was informed that he had died. When his wife went to identify S Balamurugan’s body, they said that it was badly bruised and covered with blood, despite a post-mortem which stated that he had died from a heart attack.

An unlawful custodial death is a serious human rights violation. All deaths in custody must be promptly, independently and effectively investigated. Where there are grounds for believing that the cause of death was unlawful, and where sufficient, admissible evidence is found, suspected perpetrators, including those with command responsibility, must be prosecuted in fair trials.

Amnesty International calls on the Malaysian government to independently, impartially and effectively investigate the death of S Balamurugan, immediately suspend police officers allegedly involved in his death, and ensure that those suspected of responsibility are held to account.

Background
Amnesty International has monitored other cases in Malaysia in which responsible authorities have not been held accountable for unlawful deaths in custody. For example, in 2013, N Dharmendran died from injuries sustained while in police custody. Despite photographs shared by the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) that showed severe injuries and bruising on his body, no one has yet been held to account for his death. This case and many others illustrate the apparent failure of Malaysian authorities to hold police officers and other government officials accountable for unlawful conduct and human rights violations.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

JUDGES SHOULD DECIDE ON BAIL, NOT THE PUBLIC PROCECUTOR -Access to Bail Must Not Be Denied To The Poor Or By Law (MADPET)


See related post:- Judges should decide on Bail - not the Public Prosecutor?

Judges should decide on bail, not the public prosecutor

   Charles Hector     Published     Updated
Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) is shocked that the public prosecutor may be considering a proposal to deny bail for repeat offenders of small drug-related crimes that carry the penalty of five years’ imprisonment or less.

This was reportedly disclosed by Perak Narcotics Criminal Investigation Department head ACP VR Ravi Chandran who said there was a need to do so “... due to the increase of 12.2 percent, or 2,220 people, who were arrested for various drug-related offences last year” (‘Perak mulls denying bail for repeat drug offenders’, FMT News, Feb 2, 2017 and The Star Feb 3, 2017).

We recall the legal principle that every accused shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, that is proven guilty after a fair trial.

The purpose of bail is simply that the accused person be released on condition that he turns up in court on the dates fixed for his/her case. Judges do consider all relevant factors, before deciding on the question of bail, which also may be granted on many other conditions, if needed.

As it is now, section 41B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 already denies bail for persons charged with offences under the Act that carries the death sentences or sentences of more than five years’ imprisonment.
Section 41B 1(c), however, states as follows, “where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for five years or less and the public prosecutor certifies in writing that it is not in the public interest to grant bail to the accused person”. That means the public prosecutor will decide, and the accused has to stay in detention until the trial is over and the court decides whether he/she is guilty or not. This is unacceptable.

Judges should decide whether bail is to be granted or denied to an accused in any particular case. In bail applications, judges do consider all the arguments of the prosecutor and also the accused persons. Judges, after taking into account all relevant facts and the law, decide whether bail be granted or not, and if granted on what conditions.

It is wrong for Parliament through laws to oust this discretion of judges and/or courts. It is even more unjust, if that decision rests just in the hands of the public prosecutor.

What the Perak police are allegedly asking for is even more draconian, they want bail to be denied to all ‘repeat offenders’. It must be noted that some, especially the poor, even when innocent, do plead guilty especially for offences that carry lesser sentences.

Section 41B(1)(c) give the power of denial of bail to the public prosecutor, who simply has to certify “... in writing that it is not in the public interest to grant bail to the accused person...” Judges and courts power to decide on bail is simply ousted.

Worse still, the application seems to be for a blanket denial of bail for all persons charged with a drug-related offence, and this is unacceptable. This would include even persons allegedly with a very small amounts of drugs, possibly simply for personal usage. Every person’s application for bail should be considered individually.

There is great injustice when an innocent person is deprived of his liberty for so many months or years, and then found to be not guilty. As it is, trials in Malaysia can take a very long time, and it is possible some may have been detained for periods that are even longer than the maximum imprisonment sentence they would have faced if found guilty by court.

Denial of bail means not just the loss of liberty. It will also affect a person’s employment and income, a person’s business and other income generating activities. The impact will be also be felt by the family and dependants.

Now that Malaysia is a signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and by reason of the values Malaysians hold, we have to ask whether it is in the best interest of the child if her/his parent, brother or sister, is kept in detention even before the court finds/him/her guilty.

What is worse, is the greater injustice that befalls a person and also his/her family, if the courts finally determines that he/she is not guilty. Harm cause by this denial of bail can never be erased, and in Malaysia, at present there is still no law that provides for just compensation for those victims, whose freedom and liberty have been denied for so long.

‘Need for a law for just compensation’

It is thus important, that we, at the very least, have a law to provide for just compensation and/or damages to such persons, found to be innocent, for the time they had already spent in detention by reason of denial of bail, poverty, wrong court decisions that are overturned by higher courts, and even unnecessary detention by police for remand.

In some case, where there may have been justification to keep a person in detention and that person is finally acquitted and set free, he/she also needs to be compensation for the loss of liberty and freedoms, he/she had to suffer by reason of the said detentions.

The poor suffer the greatest when courts set bail at an amount which is too high and/or affordable to them and/or their family/friends. In Malaysia, where the bail is set at RM10,000, then the surety is expected to have that RM10,000 and be willing to part with it for the necessary duration.

A poor man earning RM1,000 per month, which is used to support himself and his family, when asked to post bail of even RM2,000 may find it almost impossible. A poor man’s family and friends also may not be able to afford to come up with that much. The end result is that even if bail is granted, but is unaffordable, a person may end up in detention until the trial is over.

Worse still is the situation when a person, who has been in detention by reason of denial of bail or being unable to afford bail, is finally found guilty for an offence where the maximum sentence is much less than the time actually spend in detention awaiting the end of trial. There is still no compensation for the extra unnecessary time spend in detention.

Some judges do consider the period the convicted has spend in detention when handing out sentence, and sentence them to the time spend already in detention which enables the convicted to immediately go free. But the doubt arises whether the same judge would have given a much lesser sentence if the same accussed had been out on bail pending conviction.

This bleak reality also results in many persons who may be actually innocent pleading guilty at the onset, because by so doing, they will just simply have to spend time in prison for a shorter defined period, and thereafter resume their ordinary life as soon as they get released. A great injustice happens.

Now, if bail is denied for minor drug related crimes, that carry sentences, if convicted, of imprisonment of five years or less, the naturally we may find many of these persons who are innocent or will never be found guilty, simply pleading guilty at the very start of the trial. It may good for the government, the police/enforcement officers and the prosecution to show effective law enforcement, but in actual fact it may not be true and a great injustice would occur.

As such, Madpet urges

a) That the question of bail must be always determined by the judges and/or courts, and certainly never the public prosecutor;

b) That all laws and/or provisions of law that deny the right to apply for bail, including Section 41B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 be immediately repealed;

c) That right to bail is exercisable by all who are entitled, especially the poor. Bail amounts should be set taking into account the income of the accused and/or his immediate family;

d) That trials, where the accused are not out on bail, be expedited, and completed preferably not later than six (6) months;

e) That Malaysia enacts a law that will properly compensate the loss of liberty, freedoms and rights for those who have spend time in detention who is ultimately found not guilty and/or are acquitted. This compensation should also probably compensate the expenses incurred by the said accused (or even initially convicted) in his/her struggle than ended up in court finding him not guilty and/or acquitting him;

f) That Malaysia promotes and respects the human rights and freedom of all, including the right to a fair trial and the right to bail.


CHARLES HECTOR is coordinator, Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet).

Source: Malaysiakini, 15/2/2017


Media Statement:- 15/2/2017

JUDGES SHOULD DECIDE ON BAIL, NOT THE PUBLIC PROCECUTOR


-Access to Bail Must Not Be Denied To The Poor Or By Law –



MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is shocked that the Public Prosecutor maybe considering the proposal  to deny bail for repeat offenders of small drug-related crimes that carries the penalty of 5 years or less. This was reportedly disclosed by Perak Narcotic Criminal Investigation Department head ACP V R Ravi Chandran  who said there was a need to do so ‘… due to the increase of 12.2%, or 2,220 people, who were arrested for various drug-related offences last year..’.(FMT News, 2/2/2017 ‘Perak mulls denying bail for repeat drug offenders’)/and  Star 3/2/1017).


We recall the legal principle that every accused shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, that is proven guilty after a fair trial.


The purpose of bail is simply that the accused person be released on condition that he turns up in court on the dates fixed for his/her case. Judges do consider all relevant factors, before deciding on the question of bail, which also may be granted on many other conditions, if needed.   


As it is now, section 41B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 already denies bail for persons charged with offences under the Act that carries the death sentences or sentences of more than 5 years imprisonment. Section 41B 1(c), however, states as follows, ‘where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for five years or less and the Public Prosecutor certifies in writing that it is not in the public interest to grant bail to the accused person. That means the Public Prosecutor will decide, and the accused has to stay in detention until the trial is over and the court decides whether he/she is guilty or not. This is unacceptable.


Judges should decide whether bail is to be granted or denied to an accused in any particular case. In bail applications, judges do consider all the arguments of the prosecutor and also the accused persons. Judges, after taking into account all relevant facts and the law, decides whether bail be granted or not, and if granted on what conditions. It is wrong for Parliament through laws to oust this discretion of judges and/or courts. It is even more unjust, if that decision rests just in the hands of the Public Prosecutor.


What the Perak police is allegedly asking for is even more draconian, they want bail to be denied to all ‘repeat offenders’. It must be noted that some, especially the poor, even when innocent, do plead guilty especially for offences that carry lesser sentences.


Section 41B(1)(c) give the power of denial of bail to the Public Prosecutor, who simply has to certify ‘… in writing that it is not in the public interest to grant bail to the accused person…’Judges and courts power to decide on bail is simply ousted.


Worse still, the application seems to be for a blanket denial of bail for all persons charged with a drug related offence is unacceptable.  This would include even persons allegedly with a very small amounts of drugs, possibly simply for personal usage. Every person’s application for bail should be considered individually.


Great injustice when an innocent person is deprived of his liberty for so many months or years, and then found to be not guilty. As it is, trials in Malaysia can take a very long time, and it is possible some may have been detained for periods that are even longer than the maximum imprisonment sentence they would have faced if found guilty by court.


Denial of bail means not just the loss of liberty. It will also affect a person’s employment and income, a person’s business and other income generating activities. The impact will be also be felt by the family and dependants. Now, that Malaysia is a signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and by reason of the values Malaysians hold, we have to ask whether it is in the best interest of the child if her/his parent, brother or sister, is kept in detention even before the court finds/him/her guilty.


What is worse, is the greater injustice that befalls a person and also his/her family, if the courts finally determines that he/she is not guilty. Harm cause by this denial of bail can never be erased, and in Malaysia, at present there is still no law that provides for just compensation for those victims, whose freedom and liberty have been denied for so long. It is thus important, that we, at the very least, have a law to provide for just compensation and/or damages to such persons, found to be innocent, for the time they had already spent in detention by reason of denial of bail, poverty, wrong court decisions that are overturned by higher courts, and even unnecessary detention by police for remand. In some case, where there may have been justification to keep a person in detention and that person is finally acquitted and set free, he/she also needs to be compensation for the loss of liberty and freedoms, he/she had to suffer by reason of the said detentions.


The poor suffer the greatest when courts set bail at an amount, which is too high and/or affordable to them and/or their family/friends. In Malaysia, where the bail is set at RM10,000, then the surety is expected to have that RM10,000 and be willing to part with it for the necessary duration. A poor man earning RM1,000 per month, which is used to support himself and his family, when asked to post bail of even RM2,000 may find it almost impossible. A poor man’s family and friends also may not be able to afford to come up with that much. End result is that even if bail is granted, but is unaffordable, a person may end up in detention until the trial is over.


Worse still is the situation when a person, who has been in detention by reason of denial of bail or being unable to afford bail, is finally found guilty for an offence where the maximum sentence is much less than the time actually spend in detention awaiting the end of trial. There is still no compensation for the extra unnecessary time spend in detention. Some judges, do consider the period the convicted has spend in detention when handing out sentence, and sentence them to the time spend already in detention which enables the convicted to immediately go free. But the doubt arises whether the same judge would have given a much lesser sentence if the same accussed had been out on bail pending conviction.


This bleak reality also results in many persons who may be actually innocent pleading guilty at the onset, because by so doing, they will just simply have to spend time in prison for a shorter defined period, and thereafter resume their ordinary life as soon as they get released. A great injustice happens.


Now, if bail is denied for minor drug related crimes, that carry sentences, if convicted, of imprisonment of five years or less, the naturally we may find many of these persons who are innocent or will never be found guilty, simply pleading guilty at the very start of the trial. It may good for the government, the police/enforcement officers and the prosecution to show effective law enforcement, but in actual fact it may not be true and a great injustice would occur.


As such, MADPET calls for


a)      That the question of bail must be always determined by the Judges and/or Courts, and certainly never the Public Prosecutor;


b)      That all laws and/or provisions of law that deny the right to apply for bail, including section 41B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 be immediately repealed;


c)       That right to bail is exercisable by all who are entitled, especially the poor. Bail amounts should be set taking into account the income of the accused and/or his immediate family;


d)      That trials, where the accused are not out on bail, be expedited, and completed preferably not later than six(6) months;


e)      That Malaysia enacts a law that will properly compensate the loss of liberty, freedoms and rights for those who have spend time in detention who is ultimately found not guilty and/or are acquitted. This compensation should also probably compensate the expenses incurred by the said accused (or even initially convicted) in his/her struggle than ended up in court finding him not guilty and/or acquitting him;


f)       That Malaysia promotes and respects the human rights and freedom of all, including the right to a fair trial and the right to bail.



Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)