Forum on Police Brutality & Killings, 26 Sept (Wed)

Who’s accountable? When will it all stop?

Date: 26 September 2012 (Wednesday)

Time: 8:00pm – 10:00pm

Venue: Pusat Rakyat LoyarBurok

3-4 (Tingkat 4), Jalan Bangsar Utama 3

Bangsar Utama, 59000

Kuala Lumpur

Panel of Speakers

 

Phil Robertson

Deputy Asia Director, Human Rights Watch

N.Surendran

Co-founder & Adviser, Lawyers for Liberty

Nalini Elumalai

Executive Director, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

Over the last decade, hundreds of people have died in police custody and shooting but yet there is little accountability, transparency or any real investigations by the authorities responsible, namely the courts, police, Attorney-General’s Chambers and hospitals which provided medical assistance or conducted post-mortems.

Despite the obvious seriousness of any extra judicial killings, these important state institutions in most, if not all of these cases, chose to downplay, ignore, cover up or even make outrageous claims over these deaths – causing these institutions to lose credibility and public confidence.

The Government absolutely refused to set up the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) and continuously and blindly supported the police irrespective of whatever crimes, wrongdoings and abuses they have perpetrated.

No amount of police public relations exercise, rebranding, tweeting and face booking can restore public confidence in the police. Listen to the speakers discussing who’s accountable and when will it all stop.

For more information, please contact:

Eric Paulsen –             017-6768 106      ; epaulsenzero@yahoo.com

Afiq M Noor – 010-3666 434; afiqmnoor@gmail.com

 www.lawyersforliberty.org

---------------------------------------------

Forum Awam

Keganasan & Pembunuhan Polis
Siapa bertanggungjawab? Bila ianya akan berakhir?
Tarikh : 26 September 2012 (Rabu)
Masa: 8:00 ptg– 10:00 ptg
Tempat: Pusat Rakyat LoyarBurok
3-4 (Tingkat 4), Jalan Bangsar Utama 3
Bangsar Utama, 59000
Kuala Lumpur

Panelis
Phil Robertson
Timbalan Pengarah (Bahagian Asia), Human Rights Watch
N.Surendran
Pengasas Bersama & Penasihat, Lawyers for Liberty
Nalini Elumalai
Pengarah Eksekutif, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

Lebih sedekad yang lalu, beratus-ratus orang telah mati dalam tahanan polis dan ditembakmati tetapi sehingga sekarang masih belum ada akauntabiliti, ketelusan atau apa-apasiasatan sebenar yang dijalankan oleh pihak berkuasa yang bertanggungjawab, sepertimahkamah, polis, Jabatan Peguam Negara dan hospital sewaktu memberikan bantuanperubatan atau menjalankan bedah siasat.

Walaupun jelas serius, pembunuhan yang tidak mengikut lunas undang-undang ini masihdidiamkan oleh badan-badan penting yang memilih untuk meremehkan, mengabaikandan menutup salahlaku ini dan selanjutnya menyebabkan institusi-institusi penting ini hilangkredibiliti dan keyakinan awam.

Kerajaan benar-benar enggan untuk menubuhkan Suruhanjaya Bebas bagi MenyiasatAduan dan Salahlaku Polis (IPCMC) dan secara berterusan dan membuta tulimemberikan sokongan kepada polis tanpa mengira jenayah, salah laku dan penyelewenganyang telah dilakukan oleh mereka.

Dengan pelbagai program perhubungan awam, penjenamaan semula, penggunaan twitterdan facebook masih tidak dapat  mengembalikan dan memulihkan keyakinan orang ramaiterhadap polis. Para panelis akan membincangkan siapa yang bertanggungjawab danbilakah ianya akan berakhir.

Untuk maklumat lanjut sila hubungi:
Eric Paulsen -             017-6768 106      ; epaulsenzero@yahoo.com
Afiq M Noor – 010-3666 434; afiqmnoor@gmail.com

www.lawyersforliberty.org

一些不是法律的事

当初修读法律，以为法律是很神圣的教条，它能度一切苦厄，解决这个地球上任何纠纷。其实，这世界上，还有一些不是法律的事。人们喜欢称它为灰色地带，或者是法律漏洞；其实对我来说，这很简单，它只是一件法律不能解决的事。

令我有这个领悟来自由某网友推荐的女性朋友，我称她为A小姐。A小姐面临人生抉择，需要一些法律上的咨询与协助。我自认在网络上也算是活跃分子，虽然不是什么法律专才但既然网友转介的就姑且听听A小姐有什么法律事务需要帮忙。

A小姐遇上生命中的男人，我称他为B先生。A小姐告诉我他被B先生蒙骗，在怀有了B先生的骨肉后才发现原来是有妇之夫。A小姐询问是否可以有什么法律途径向B先生追讨赡养费或赔偿，重点是她怀孕，她说被B先生欺骗，以致不采取任何防范措施，事因不知B先生的家庭背景。

这类故事，那刹时刻还真赚人热泪的。这也是为什么我拒绝修读家庭法（Family Law）的其中一个原因；而那原因是I can't leave my heart at home when I do Family Law。古语曰：清官难审家庭事。更何况，我不是清官，也不懂处理家庭事。于是，我便向资深的同事协助询问。

可惜的是，我国并没有任何一条法律可以协助这位A小姐。严格来说，Happy过后，后果自负。双方的情投意合，以及间中的任何亲密关系，是出自由双方的诚心。虽然这诚心被不实的诚信污染，但法律也不能提供任何协助。

有些事情，虽然我们知道不正义，但是守护正义的法律却失责，无从发挥。

Married Women and Children (Maintenance Act) 1950 第3（2）条文表示：

“If any person neglects or refuses to maintain an illegitimate child of his which is unable to maintain itself, a court, upon due proof thereof, may order such person to make such monthly allowance, as to the court seems reasonable”

因此，在孩子未出世前，A小姐仍然承担一切费用和照顾孩子的责任。倘若她要依据以上所述条文向B先生进行追讨赡养费，必须等孩子出世后方能这么做。这是一项赌博，是高风险投资，如果B先生在孩子出世后：-

（一）宣告破产；
（二）不能被寻找（广东话叫走佬 / 著草）；
（三）经济状况陷入危机；

这些因素，都极可能导致追讨赡养费失败的原因。所以，称它为赌博一点也不为怪。

原来，法律精神都可以被玩弄至赌博形式，法律条文是何等的深不可测。

我谨以证严法师的静思语与这位A小姐，B先生和各位朋友共勉之：

有人點燈求光明，其實真正的光明，在我們心裡。  

The Batang Kali Massacre – Battle Continues

My article being published on LoyarBurok : www.loyarburok.com

Link: http://www.loyarburok.com/2012/09/07/batang-kali-massacre-%E2%80%93-battle-continues/

A reminder to all of the tragedy at Batang Kali, and how we continue to remember those lives unjustly taken.

Youngsters dislike history. To be frank, we don’t bother with “his-story” because we have nothing to do with it. However, some historic injustices which do not often surface have to be revealed, especially when it involves the relationship between Great Britain and Her Majesty’s previous colony – our beloved Malaysia. (In case you have forgotten secondary school history lessons, Malaysia formerly was known as “the Federation of Malaya”.)

This story begins with a group of 24 unarmed Batang Kali (located at Ulu Yam) male villagers who were shot dead by the Second Battalion of the Scot Guards. They were deployed to the said village to combat an insurgency and threat of communism at that point in time. Scot Guards were under the command and control of the British Army, who claimed that the twenty-four innocent men were part of the communists or bandits, and as such were subjected to cruel and deliberate execution at the will of the Scot Guards.

Up till this stage of the story, I try to KISS. (Keep It Short & Simple)

The resulting widows and fatherless children sought help from the Chinese Consular-General to communicate the unlawful killings to the British Government. The outcome of this was two uncompleted investigations,  with the British Government never once hesitating to maintain its initial account of events, regardless of repeated waves of petitions, demonstrations and even an official meeting with Her Majesty’s High Commissioner at Jalan Ampang. The victims’ families demanded for a genuine apology, and urged the British Government to admit to the true facts of history.

Despite the extreme cost of legal services to be carried out and the potential claims to be made by UK’s Treasury Solicitor, the claimants were encouraged by the British Ministers’ attempts to evade legal responsibility for the killings by arguing that the Selangor Sultan was the one who commanded the troops. Thus, with the aid of Bindmans LLP and legal aid from the UK, the claimants filed for a judicial review of the British Government’s position on the unlawful killings.

This made me recall my first subject I learned in law – UK’s Public Law (formerly known as Constitutional and Administrative Law). I learnt numerous human rights cases, from lower courts up to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. I understood the importance of and respected the spirit of the Human Rights Act 1998.

But today, I received a disappointing judgement from the Queens Bench Division’s President – Sir John Thomas – and Mr Justice Treacy.  Truth is, we have lost the battle. The Court refused to carry out a full inquiry on the massacre. However on a brighter note, it may be said that our efforts paid off in the sense that the Court acknowledged and admitted certain key facts, which overturned the untruthful allegations made by the Ministers. The twenty-four men were neither communists nor bandits. Although the Court gave the red light to establishing a public inquiry, the Judges decisively found the British Government to be responsible for the deaths.

Human rights is not an abstract end-product; it is a spirit and legal morale to be upheld by everyone. I learnt that one of the victims was found beheaded, and felt much sympathy towards his family. It is noted that the British Government apologized for the Bloody Sunday incident, but not for Batang Kali. Although the Court rejected the claimants’ application on technical grounds, they were never deprived of alternatives as the Court of Appeal would be the next option.

This is the first time Malaysians challenged a court case without any help from the government.

And the battle will be continued.

P.S. The author is attached with the victims’ families’ legal representative – Messrs Halim Hong & Quek.

反稀土-政策与民意的较量

估想不到，反莱纳斯运动会有今天的局面。当第一批稀土原料抵达关丹港口时，整个局势的发展届时预计将一发不可收拾。从2008年反内安法令游行至最近的Bersih 3.0，反稀土运动组织所发起的人墙将可能是国内最大的民间组织运动。

政府在面对人民那浪潮般的反对声中丝毫不妥协，仍然以足够的安全评估机制和废物管理系统的理由继续让莱纳斯运作。这一点，以被原子能局所发出的临时营运准证（Temporary Operating License）而证实。

作为一个平民百姓，我们不了解到底在提炼稀土时所释放出的放射性物质将会对人体有什么伤害，我们只知道它是辐射性有害物质。但同时间，我们更加不了解，为什么政府依然选择忽视民怨，我行我素的沉醉在倒数稀土原料抵达关口的日子。

其实，这一点都不难了解。

执政政府的角色就是鉴定，拟定与执行国家政策，其中包括发展国家经济利益，通过各行各业提升国家的竞争力与生产力，以及从中抽取税收以建设国家设施。这是最简单的说法。一旦民意与政策背道而驰，就相似莱纳斯那样，我们不禁要去多加思考，为何政府要这么做。

我就以一段男女关系来做出一个简单的比喻。

政府所决定的决策，就好像一个一家之主做了某些家庭决定，那另外一半必须遵照和跟随。如果伴侣反对那个一家之主的决定，就会显得那个大男人的一家之主无地自容。说穿了，就是没脸。可能你会认为这很肤浅，可是这是实实在在的说法。

倘若政府轻易就范，就会显得一个强大的政权失去形象，弱不禁风的模样显露无遗，也会让人民觉得这政权很容易被欺负。作为一个拥有无数专业人士和头脑精明的领导层，故不会不知民心所变将影响在位政权。可是，我们的政府却选择了另一边。

基于种种的利益挂钩与那不可输的强霸心理，这种作风将导致反稀土民心越演越烈。政治的词汇运用实在是很美妙，制造就业机会，稀土重工业将发展我国等，这些词汇也切切实实地摆出了一幅执政政权的强大气势，但不得不否认，一个政权就必须拥有这样的前瞻性远见。

可惜，这远见，被民意侵蚀着。

做人不可忘本；做政府的，也别忘了，您现在高高在上的政权，是来自民心。

我虽看不懂那些稀土化验报告，但我可以斩钉截铁的说，这股挡在关丹港口的人墙，将会覆盖那高高在上的政权。