UNHRC wants Malaysia to scrap ISA, preventive laws By Melissa Chi

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 21 — The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has urged Putrajaya to abolish the country’s preventive laws — especially the Internal Security Act (ISA) — “as soon as possible”.

The recommendations from its working group on arbitrary detention, conducted from June 7 to 17 last year, suggested the government abolish all four preventive laws, improve its detention centres for immigrants, remove the Ikatan Relawan Rakyat Malaysia (Rela) volunteer force from guarding the detention centres, and give more power to Suhakam, the Human Rights Commission.

“With regard to the criminal justice system, the working group observes the relatively long periods accused persons spend in pre-trial detention, sometimes for several years,” said the council.

“The law imposes excessive restrictions on appeals and the habeas corpus resource is rarely used, and solely for procedural issues.”

The report said that the human rights in Malaysia are hindered by preventive laws, mainly the ISA, but also the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance, the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act and the Restricted Residence Act.

“The working group recommends that the government abrogate all these laws as soon as possible.” it said, while calling for the ISA to be subject to judicial review in the interim.

The report also said that detention under immigration powers “does not seem to be in line” with international human rights law, adding that it had received complaints of “detainee abuse, inadequate food, water, medical care and poor sanitation in most immigration detention centres.”

The panel further expressed concern over the deployment of Rela to guard detainees and questioned the advisability of using such a force in an immigration enforcement role.

“Rela, as a volunteer force, should not be used for law enforcement nor for guarding immigration detention centres,” it said.

The report also recommended that the government strengthen the status, powers and functions of Suhakam in accordance with the Paris Principles.

The Paris Principles were defined at the first International Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights held in Paris, in 1991.

They were adopted by the UNHRC and relates to the status and functioning of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights.

A number of other recommendations include guaranteeing access to legal counsel and communication from detainees with their relatives, develop a parole system, provide for a legal aid system for immigration detainees, and to have minor offenders to do community work, and not be imprisoned.

It was also suggested that the government facilitate the access of Suhakam and non-governmental organisations to immigration detention facilities, police lock-ups and prisons to monitor conditions and provide additional services in partnership with the government.

The group, however, lauded the government’s progress in the addressing such concerns, pointing the reduction in the recourse to the ISA and the release of five leaders of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), who were detained in 2007 for organising protests against the alleged marginalisation of ethnic Indians.

Tun Dr M, my hero — Art Harun

February 09, 2011

FEB 9 — In the last few weeks I have been entertained by two of my favourite people in the world.
Yes. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew. Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison. The pot and the kettle. The men with the plan. The visionaries. The beacon of liberty, freedom, progress, development and, oh yes, the Asian Values.
One calls the other, firstly, “little Emperor of a tiny Middle Kingdom.” Then he downgraded the other — two days ago, to be exact — from being an Emperor to just a Mayor. The other one insinuated that his counterpart is delusional. And it goes on.
Nobody knows who is right or who is mightier.
One thing which I know for sure is this: Both were benevolent absolutists bent on achieving anything which they managed to conjure up in their respective warped mind regardless of the consequences of their respective acts. Both are old people who really should just stop churning out vitriol and do some good instead, like by not saying anything about anything.
The latest by Tun Dr M is a mind-boggling pronouncement that Malaysia belongs to Malays and that the non-Malays just have to live with that fact by accepting the culture and language of the dominant community. He has reportedly said:
“This country belongs to the Malay race. Peninsular Malaysia was known as Tanah Melayu but this cannot be said because it will be considered racist.
“We must be sincere and accept that the country is Tanah Melayu.” (The Malaysian Insider)
I am Malay. Tun Dr M is my hero. Thank you very much, Tun.
As dirty talks go, that must have outperformed Linda Lovelace and the whole Dallas team put together.
I do not know why some people are obsessed with the ownership of this country. It is as if this country is full of things which could be owned and are in fact owned.
On my last count, Bahasa Melayu is owned by Malays. The word “Allah” is also owned by Malays (who by Constitutional definition are synonymous with Muslims). There are also “special rights” which are owned by Malays. 30 per cent of the economy is owned — well, actually, is supposed to be owned — by Malays.
In fact, I know of one specific Malay who is going around town owning everything and anything — mostly government projects and monopolised businesses — which is “ownable.”
And now this. Malaysia is owned by Malays.
I am so glad to know that. Because the last I went back to my kampung, I saw countless Malays riding old motorbikes, struggling to pay their water bills and school fees (who says our schools have no fees?), eating plain rice and ikan masin day in and day out, working in leased paddy fields with just enough money to buy rice and ikan masin after paying their landlords for the paddy field and the rentals for the tractors and harvesters.
Now, I suppose these poor Malays could go to the land office and claim this land, which has been declared as theirs.
Nice. The Malay problems are solved. Poverty among the Malays is solved. Declining standard of education is solved. Health care problem is solved. Inability to think is solved.
And with one sentence (or two), Tun Dr M has managed to solve the issue which had been ghosting his mind since 1969.
Yes folks. THE MALAY DILEMMA IS SOLVED.
Take that, Minister (Mentor) Lee Kuan Yew! What do you have to say about that, huh? You surely have not solved the Chinese Dilemma, have you, Minister Lee?
In fact, you do not even have a Chinese Dilemma to begin with! How very inferior to Tun Dr M, you are.
I have written so much on the so-called social contract and on how Malaysia gained her independence as well as the thoughts and rationale which went into the framing of some of the provisions of our Federal Constitution, especially Article 153. I am not going to repeat them here.
I am not going to argue with Tun Dr M anymore. Let’s just assume — and it is really a very big assumption — that what he said is correct. Tanah Melayu belonged to the Malays. Let’s just take that as the gospel (oh, I forget, I am Muslim, and so it should be the “Quranic”) truth.
But is there a Tanah Melayu now? In 2011?
The truth is Tanah Melayu disappeared from the face of the Earth on September 16, 1963, when Malaysia was born. All her citizens became Malaysians. They may belong to different ethnicities, different races, different faiths, different tribes speaking different languages and dialects, but they all became Malaysians that early morning.
This country did not belong to Malays anymore that morning. This country belonged to Malaysians from that morning onwards.
If the Tun’s favourite hypothesis of the social contract is correct, true and accurate — that there was a round table agreement between leaders of the three main races where the Malays have agreed to allow the non-Malays to become citizens in exchange for special rights — then by that same token, it means that the Malays, through that very same social contract, have agreed to disclaim their ownership of Tanah Melayu in exchange for some special rights.
I am not making this up. I am saying this based on what Tun Dr M has been saying all this while.
If ever there was such an agreement — as repetitiously blared by Tun Dr M and his ilk — that would be the natural and legal consequences of that agreement.
If that being so, on what basis, I wonder, is Tun Dr M now basing his claim that Malaysia is owned by the Malays?
As for Lee Kuan Yew, you do not have the right to even speak about us, okay. You have not even identified the Chinese Dilemma yet. You little Mayor! — art-harun.blogspot.com