Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Bar Council: Suicide finding is ‘a leap in logic’
- French probe to zoom into Altantuya-subs deal link
- Malaysia’s Political Awakening: A Call for US Leadership
| Bar Council: Suicide finding is ‘a leap in logic’ Posted: 22 Jul 2011 08:39 PM PDT
The Malaysian Bar says the RCI's finding that Teoh Beng Hock had committed suicide was "unsupported by the facts and evidence". Lim said in view of the above, and as there were no evidence whatsoever produced at the RCI hearing of Teoh's whereabouts or movements after 6:15am, and that the MACC staff would have begun arriving by 8:00 am, "to surmise that Teoh had committed suicide between 7:15am and 11:15am requires a leap in logic and an assumption of facts not in evidence". Teoh EL San Free Malaysia Today The Bar Council has rejected the suicide finding of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Teoh Beng Hock's death, saying that the conclusion was "unsupported by the facts and evidence". Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee also urged the government as well as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to apologise to Teoh's family and the citizens of Malaysia, over his death; and compensate Teoh's family over their loss. "It is very clear to the Malaysian Bar that full responsibility for Teoh Beng Hock's death lies squarely and solely on the MACC, and that immediate action must be taken to hold the culpable officers accountable for their behaviour," said Lim. He said the Bar welcomed the statement by Minister in Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz that "appropriate action would be taken against the officers through the process of law without delay". Lim said the authorities should investigate the relevant officers for possible offences under sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code, namely for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for causing the death of TBH by negligence, respectively. However, Lim said that Nazri had erred when he quoted forensic psychiatrist Professor Paul Mullen "Contrary to the statement made by Nazri, Mullen did not testify that Teoh had a 'weak character' that led him to take his own life. He did not conclude that Teoh had committed suicide," said Lim. Rather, Lim said, Mullen's testimony stated:"in [his] opinion, what we learned of Teoh Beng Hock's personality and behaviour do not suggest any increased risk of suicide". "He (Mullen) further opined that the context of the events that had taken place was not one 'which, in [his] experience, leads to suicide in custody', as he had not been made aware of anything 'to explain panic and distress sufficient to drive [Teoh Beng Hock] to conclude his honor had been irreparably tarnished'," said Lim. Lim said this was in stark contrast to what Nazri had stated during the release of the report as Mullen's testimony in fact did not provide the basis for a finding of suicide. Leap in logic
Lim said in view of the above, and as there were no evidence whatsoever produced at the RCI hearing of Teoh's whereabouts or movements after 6:15am, and that the MACC staff would have begun arriving by 8:00 am, "to surmise that Teoh had committed suicide between 7:15am and 11:15am requires a leap in logic and an assumption of facts not in evidence". Lim also noted that the the other joint expert psychiatric report tendered during the RCI by Dr Badiah Yahya and Dr Nor Hayati Ali (who were engaged by MACC and present during most of the court proceedings and had interviewed Teoh Beng Hock's family members, housemate and work colleagues) also said there was lack of information on whether Teoh had suffered any strenuous mental strain from an interrogation.
|
| French probe to zoom into Altantuya-subs deal link Posted: 22 Jul 2011 06:29 PM PDT
(Yahoo News/Malaysiakini) - Investigations by French authorities into the controversial RM7.3 billion Scorpene submarine deal , which allegedly involves kickbacks to top Malaysian officials, may shed light on the mystery surrounding the death of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu. Paris-based lawyer William Bourdon, who was in Penang on Thrursday, said the probe would probably reveal relevant details related to Altantuya's involvement in the purchase of the two French submarines by Malaysia. Police investigations have already revealed that Altantuya and Abdul Razak Baginda, a close confidante of Prime Minister Najib Razak, had been beneficiaries of travel expenses paid by an obscure French company in Malta. Bourdon, who was detained by immigration officers at the KL International Airport upon arriving from Penang about 10.30am yesterday, said he had kept abreast of Altantuya's case since her death in 2006, and had noted that her murder trial had been overly dramatised. Speaking to Malaysiakini in exclusive interview just hours before he was detained by immigration authorities, who boarded his plane at KLIA this morning, Bourdon said: "The manner in which the trial was conducted provoked many questions; a lot of obscurity remains regarding her murder." The trial ended in 2008 with two of the bodyguards of Najib, who was then deputy prime minister and defence minister, being convicted of her murder. The duo are currently appealing their death sentence. Abdul Razak, who had been charged with abetting the duo, was acquitted without being called to make his defence. Observers had remarked that despite the high-profile trial, two pertinent questions surrounding Altantuya's murder were yet to be answered: why was she killed and who ordered her killing? Najib, who as defence minister was in charge of the mega-Scorpene submarine deal, has denied any involvement in the murder. On the Suaram case which the lawyer filed in Paris last year, Bourdon said he was confident he would be able to access the related documents and files very soon. These expose is expected to bring to book high-profile Malaysian officials who are said to have received kickbacks amounting to millions of ringgit from the submarine deal. Bourdon said the case was still under the investigation phase, where the police still interrogating witnesses. On behalf of human rights group Suaram, Bourdon has applied to the public prosecutor to allow the Kuala Lumpur-based NGO to be admitted as a civil plaintiff in court. If accepted, he said, an investigative judge will be appointed to handle the case. "The investigative judge is the only real independent institution to deal with sensitive cases such as corruption," he said. No real democracy if judges not independent On whether the independence of the judiciary could be guaranteed, Bourdon said this would be assured through the appointment of the investigative judge by an independent body. "The judges in such cases answer to no political hierarchy, so there is at least a legal guarantee that ensures their independence," he added. "There can be no real democracy if judges are not independent." However, Bourdon does not discount the fact that in sensitive cases like corruption, there could be a possibility of the public prosecutor being approached to keep the truth from coming out. "Especially if the truth is dangerous (to the people who approach the prosecutors)," he said. "Which is why we need an independent media to balance between state power and these institutions," he said, adding quickly that he was aware of the current state of the media in Malaysia. Although Bourdon - who was accompanied by his lawyer wife, Lia Foriester, in his trip to Malaysia - is confident that the case is making headway in France, he is still careful not to be presumptuous on whether Suaram would eventually be accepted as a civil plaintiff. This is due to the circumstances in any case involving corruption, which can be very challenging anywhere in the world, he said. The public prosecutor could well deny Suaram the right to appear as civil plaintiff and if this happened, Bourdon said, he would definitely file an appeal. Even if Suaram failed to make it to court, there would be the opportunity for its lawyers to access the relevant documents and files in the case. "In my opinion, if Suaram is not accepted as a civil plaintiff, it would seem like a breach of international legal standards and law," Bourdon added. A Plan B in place In any case, he said, he has a Plan B, about which he would not speak now. "All I can say is that we will move forward." Bourdon himself has been involved in battles to make government leaders accountable for their corrupt ways and in issues of human rights abuse over the past 30 years. He set up Sherpa, a non-profit organisation, with other lawyers in Paris in 2005 to work on international justice cases. He has conducted about 50 monitoring missions in several countries. During the course of his work in various countries, the authorities have threatened him with deportation - but never went through with it. They did, however, monitor his movements and he felt he was 'in permanent control by the secret police', for example, in Tunisia and Turkey, from 1995-2005. In all these years, his team has not only registered defeat but there have also been several victories. For example, in a forced labour case between France and Thailand, his intervention helped secure a better life and working conditions for his clients. Bourdon said he has realised that these days citizens, from Malaysia to Tunisia, were no longer tolerant of corruption. "In the last 20 years, there has been a sense of resignation where corrupt practices are in a way 'acceptable' but not any more," he said. "What has become important is democracy and rule of law, and corruption involving government leaders can break the confidence of public votes," he added.
|
| Malaysia’s Political Awakening: A Call for US Leadership Posted: 21 Jul 2011 08:08 AM PDT
On elections, the US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices declares that Malaysian opposition parties are unable to compete on equal terms with the governing UMNO-dominated coalition because of restrictions on campaigning and freedom of assembly and association. by John R. Malott, Asia Pacific Bulletin A Malaysian recently wrote to me, "Most Americans don't know or even care where Malaysia is." Even among the so-called foreign policy elite, little attention is paid to Malaysia. There are few American academics who specialize in domestic Malaysian politics, and except for hosting visits by senior Malaysian leaders, think tanks and universities hold few Malaysia-themed programs. US newspaper and magazine reports are few, with most articles focusing on tourism and the delights of Malaysian cuisine. As a result, there is a tendency among Americans to hold an idealized (and outdated) image of Malaysia as a successful multi-racial and multi-religious paradise, an Asian economic dynamo, and a stable and moderate Muslim democracy. As a result of this deficit of informed analysis of Malaysia, there has been a failure to notice the internal political and economic changes unfolding within Malaysia over the past few years. The reality today, as one Australian expert puts it, is that the situation is the "most fluid and dangerous" in Malaysia's history. The Events of July 9 – A Date for the History Books Because of this attention shortfall, the events of July 9, 2011 came as a surprise. On that day, tens of thousands of Malaysians—who have been ranked on Hofstede's Power Distance Index as the most submissive to authority of any people in the world—chose to defy their government and join a "Walk for Democracy." They heeded the call of Bersih 2.0, a coalition of 62 non-governmental organizations that calls for free and fair elections. In the days before the rally, the Malaysian government cracked down. It rounded up 200 leaders associated with the movement, claiming that they were "waging war against the King" and planning to overthrow the government. It declared both the Bersih coalition and the planned rally illegal, and in a truly bizarre action, it declared the color yellow—Bersih's signature color—illegal. Malaysian citizens were arrested for possessing Bersih literature or wearing yellow T-shirts. The police established roadblocks around the city and banned 91 Bersih and opposition leaders from entering the capital city of Kuala Lumpur. By the morning of July 9, the city was in total lockdown. Then something remarkable happened. As Ambiga Sreenevasan, the distinguished attorney who leads Bersih put it, the Malaysian people showed that they no longer would be intimidated by their government. They chose to march, knowing that they would be met by tear gas, chemical-laced water cannon, and police batons. Even after Bersih's leadership was arrested, Malaysians of all ages, races and religions continued their "Walk for Democracy" through the streets of Kuala Lumpur. They locked arms, they sang their national anthem and "We Shall Overcome," they blew bubbles and carried flowers. They were peaceful. The only muscle seen that day was the heavy hand of the police. Human Rights Watch later called the use of force excessive, the 1,670 arrests unwarranted, and the police attacks on marchers unprovoked. This repression by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his government drew international condemnation, and it also put a lie to Najib's two-year effort to portray himself as a modern, liberal-minded leader. More importantly, and of greater concern to Najib and his United Malays National Organization (UMNO) party—the main party that has ruled Malaysia continuously since independence in 1957—is that it awakened a new generation of Malaysians. It is too soon to know whether the movement for electoral reform and the establishment of true democracy in Malaysia will be sustained. If it is, then July 9 will be remembered as a turning point in Malaysia's history. Just How Free and Democratic is Malaysia? Why should a government be so afraid of a call for fair elections? Like his predecessors, Najib claims that demonstrations will lead to chaos, even though the right of assembly is guaranteed by the nation's constitution and is commonplace in any true democracy. As for free and fair elections, Najib says that Malaysia already has them; if not, then opposition parties would not have achieved the gains they made in the 2008 elections, when they received 47% of the popular vote and took control of five states. Opposition parties counter that if elections truly were fair and free, they would form the government and not the UMNO-led coalition. Political rhetoric aside, Malaysia's electoral system has been analyzed by academics in Australia, Malaysia, the United States, and elsewhere. In addition, the state of Malaysia's political freedom has been assessed by many international groups. The Economist Intelligence Unit, for example, labels Malaysia a "flawed democracy" in its Democracy Index. Freedom House says that Malaysia is only "partly free." Reporters Without Borders places Malaysia 141st out of the 178 countries in its Press Freedom Index. On elections, the US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices declares that Malaysian opposition parties are unable to compete on equal terms with the governing UMNO-dominated coalition because of restrictions on campaigning and freedom of assembly and association. "News of the opposition," the report says, is "tightly restricted and reported in a biased fashion." Academics point to the Election Commission's gerrymandering, which creates highly imbalanced districts that favor the ruling party, where the number of voters per electoral district can range from 7,000 to over 100,000. Over the years there have been numerous credible reports of the use of phantom voters, stuffed ballot boxes, vote-buying, and abuse of government resources to attract votes. In Sarawak's state elections this past April, Prime Minister Najib was caught on video, blatantly telling a village gathering that his government would give them US$1.5 million for a local project, but only if they elected his candidate. What Should Be Done? Malaysia's government may assert otherwise, but the evidence is overwhelmingly on Bersih's side. Malaysia is not a full democracy, and its elections are neither free nor fair. Malaysian citizens have awakened to that fact. Now the world's democracies need to stand on the right side of Malaysia's future. The United States has a multitude of interests in Malaysia, one of which is to help strengthen democracy and the rule of law. Human rights groups have condemned what they call the US Government's "lukewarm" response to the events of July 9. This is a moment when the United States, which named Bersih's leader Ambiga Sreenevasan an International Woman of Courage in 2009, can show the same courage and make a difference in the life of a nation. John R. Malott was the US Ambassador to Malaysia, 1995-1998, and continues to follow developments in that country closely. The Asia Pacific Bulletin (APB) series is published by the East-West Center, which promotes better relations and understanding among the people and nations of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific through cooperative study, research, and dialogue. Established by the US Congress in 1960, the Center serves as a resource for information and analysis on critical issues of common concern, bringing people together to exchange views, build expertise, and develop policy options.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan