Ceramah Penerangan Isu-isu Semasa Anjuran PKR Cabang Subang
Tarikh: 22hb Disember 2010 (Rabu) Masa: 9.00 malam
Tempat: Ruang Legar (Foyer) Dewan MBPJ, Seksyen 7, Kota Damansara.
YB Sivarasa YB Dr Nasir Hashim YB Elizabeth Wong Sdr Yahya Shaari
SEMUA DI JEMPUT
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
PRESS STATEMENT re Suspension from Parliament
Suspensions violate the rule of law and threaten the integrity and dignity of Parliament
The suspensions of the Leader of the Opposition, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ( Member for Permatang Pauh, Karpal Singh ( Member for Bukit Gelugor ), Azmin Ali ( Member for Gombak ) and myself are a flagrant violation of the rule of law.
The nature of these suspensions cannot be seen merely as actions to prevent us as individual members of Parliament from attending Parliament. The complete lack of any basis for the suspensions and the manner they were done threaten fundamentals of Parliament conventions and freedom of speech in Parliament. These are threats to all Malaysians, not just to the four of us.
The issues relating to the suspension of Anwar Ibrahim have been fully canvassed in the Minority Report of the Committee of Privileges written by myself and Karpal Singh ( see http://sivarasa.blogspot.com/2010/12/minority-report-presented-by-yb-karpal.html).
The most outrageous aspect of our four suspensions is the insistence by the BN majority in Parliament to not even accord us the fundamental right to be heard in our defence. In the case of Anwar Ibrahim, as fully explained in the Minority Report, the Speaker himself had repeatedly assured the House on 22.4.10 when the motion to refer Anwar to the Committee of Privileges that a full hearing would be accorded with all parties and witnesses heard. The Committee proceeded on this basis for its 1st three meetings on 17.5.10, 8.6.10 and 9.6.10. No meetings were called for another 6 months and then suddenly at the 4th meeting on 3.12.10, the BN majority members voted to decide the matter without hearing Anwar or any witnesses saying it was sufficient to decided the matter by reference to a letter from APCO dated 19.8.10 and contents of Hansard. Karpal and then withdrew in protest from the proceedings after this decision.
The refusal to hear Anwar Ibrahim shows without doubt the inability and fear of the BN majority to confront the facts and evidence that would have been produced before them by him.
Karpal Azmin and I are now suspended for 6 months for allegedly mentioning “evidence taken before and documents produced to the Committee” outside the House ( for Karpal and me ) and in respect of Azmin, in his urgent motion under Standing Order 18(1) on 6.12.10.
The motion to suspend uses the word “menyentuh” or “mention”. This is not what is prohibited under Standing Order 85 which only prohibits “publishing” or “menyiarkan” the evidence taken before or documents presented to the Committee.
Karpal and I had a press conference together with Datuk Seri Anwar at Parti Keadilan’s Headquarters at 2.30 pm to explain to the media the reason for our withdrawal from the proceedings of the Committee. As far as I was concerned, we were duty bound as members of the Committee and Parliament to do so. It was a matter of public interest to inform the public of the grossly unfair decision that the Committee had just made that morning and to explain our withdrawal.
We did not distribute the letter from APCO to the press nor did we disclose the details of its contents. We had, of course, to mention the fact of the letter from APCO in order to explain the decision of the Committee not to hear Anwar. Mentioning the fact of the letter in that context cannot at all be a breach of Standing Order 85.
A clause in one sentence of the letter was mentioned where the writer of the letter Brad Staples, the CEO of APCO falsely claimed that “he was not permitted to testify”. This was clearly false that because at no time did the Committee tell him that he would not be heard. Mentioning only that clause was relevant to the issue of the gross unfairness of the Committee deciding to proceed on the basis of that letter without hearing Anwar.
Similarly Azmin did not publish the contents of the APCO letter at any time either in his urgent motion itself or the short debate in the House.
Standing Order 85 is very clear. It only means that members of the Committee or Parliament cannot disclose ”evidence” given by witnesses. That does not arise here because the Committee had not even started hearing witnesses. As stated above, the contents of the letter were never published.
Standing Order 85 cannot be used to muzzle members of the Committee or the House from speaking about grossly unfair decisions of the Committee which are obvious matters of public interest.
When the Committee decided to disallow Anwar the right to be represented by legal counsel on 8.6.10 and also refused members of Parliament the right to observe the committee proceedings as done in other Parliaments, we also communicated this to the media. The BN majority led by Minister Nazri seemed to have no issue about this at that time. Somehow the letter from APCO seems to be a much more prickly issue!
The suspension of the Leader of the Opposition is clearly intended to silence his voice in Parliament raising the concerns of the rakyat whilst denouncing the corruption and misdeeds of UMNO/BN. parties.
Azmin’s, Karpal’s and my suspensions are similarly intended but are also petty minded acts of reprisal inflicted to punish us for persistently highlighting the gross unfairness in the proceedings of the Privileges Committee.
Our suspensions will prevent us from attending Parliament for the next 6 months but will not prevent us from discharging our duties to our constituents and the people of Malaysia.
I reiterate – these suspensions are not just about removing us as 4 individual members of Parliament. They represent BN’s desperate attempt to prevent the emergence of truth in Parliament proceedings. They have severely damaged the dignity and integrity of Parliament as an institution.
We will continue to take the message of these and other injustices to the people of Malaysia.
Sivarasa Rasiah, Member of Parliament for Subang 17 December 2010
The suspensions of the Leader of the Opposition, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ( Member for Permatang Pauh, Karpal Singh ( Member for Bukit Gelugor ), Azmin Ali ( Member for Gombak ) and myself are a flagrant violation of the rule of law.
The nature of these suspensions cannot be seen merely as actions to prevent us as individual members of Parliament from attending Parliament. The complete lack of any basis for the suspensions and the manner they were done threaten fundamentals of Parliament conventions and freedom of speech in Parliament. These are threats to all Malaysians, not just to the four of us.
The issues relating to the suspension of Anwar Ibrahim have been fully canvassed in the Minority Report of the Committee of Privileges written by myself and Karpal Singh ( see http://sivarasa.blogspot.com/2010/12/minority-report-presented-by-yb-karpal.html).
The most outrageous aspect of our four suspensions is the insistence by the BN majority in Parliament to not even accord us the fundamental right to be heard in our defence. In the case of Anwar Ibrahim, as fully explained in the Minority Report, the Speaker himself had repeatedly assured the House on 22.4.10 when the motion to refer Anwar to the Committee of Privileges that a full hearing would be accorded with all parties and witnesses heard. The Committee proceeded on this basis for its 1st three meetings on 17.5.10, 8.6.10 and 9.6.10. No meetings were called for another 6 months and then suddenly at the 4th meeting on 3.12.10, the BN majority members voted to decide the matter without hearing Anwar or any witnesses saying it was sufficient to decided the matter by reference to a letter from APCO dated 19.8.10 and contents of Hansard. Karpal and then withdrew in protest from the proceedings after this decision.
The refusal to hear Anwar Ibrahim shows without doubt the inability and fear of the BN majority to confront the facts and evidence that would have been produced before them by him.
Karpal Azmin and I are now suspended for 6 months for allegedly mentioning “evidence taken before and documents produced to the Committee” outside the House ( for Karpal and me ) and in respect of Azmin, in his urgent motion under Standing Order 18(1) on 6.12.10.
The motion to suspend uses the word “menyentuh” or “mention”. This is not what is prohibited under Standing Order 85 which only prohibits “publishing” or “menyiarkan” the evidence taken before or documents presented to the Committee.
Karpal and I had a press conference together with Datuk Seri Anwar at Parti Keadilan’s Headquarters at 2.30 pm to explain to the media the reason for our withdrawal from the proceedings of the Committee. As far as I was concerned, we were duty bound as members of the Committee and Parliament to do so. It was a matter of public interest to inform the public of the grossly unfair decision that the Committee had just made that morning and to explain our withdrawal.
We did not distribute the letter from APCO to the press nor did we disclose the details of its contents. We had, of course, to mention the fact of the letter from APCO in order to explain the decision of the Committee not to hear Anwar. Mentioning the fact of the letter in that context cannot at all be a breach of Standing Order 85.
A clause in one sentence of the letter was mentioned where the writer of the letter Brad Staples, the CEO of APCO falsely claimed that “he was not permitted to testify”. This was clearly false that because at no time did the Committee tell him that he would not be heard. Mentioning only that clause was relevant to the issue of the gross unfairness of the Committee deciding to proceed on the basis of that letter without hearing Anwar.
Similarly Azmin did not publish the contents of the APCO letter at any time either in his urgent motion itself or the short debate in the House.
Standing Order 85 is very clear. It only means that members of the Committee or Parliament cannot disclose ”evidence” given by witnesses. That does not arise here because the Committee had not even started hearing witnesses. As stated above, the contents of the letter were never published.
Standing Order 85 cannot be used to muzzle members of the Committee or the House from speaking about grossly unfair decisions of the Committee which are obvious matters of public interest.
When the Committee decided to disallow Anwar the right to be represented by legal counsel on 8.6.10 and also refused members of Parliament the right to observe the committee proceedings as done in other Parliaments, we also communicated this to the media. The BN majority led by Minister Nazri seemed to have no issue about this at that time. Somehow the letter from APCO seems to be a much more prickly issue!
The suspension of the Leader of the Opposition is clearly intended to silence his voice in Parliament raising the concerns of the rakyat whilst denouncing the corruption and misdeeds of UMNO/BN. parties.
Azmin’s, Karpal’s and my suspensions are similarly intended but are also petty minded acts of reprisal inflicted to punish us for persistently highlighting the gross unfairness in the proceedings of the Privileges Committee.
Our suspensions will prevent us from attending Parliament for the next 6 months but will not prevent us from discharging our duties to our constituents and the people of Malaysia.
I reiterate – these suspensions are not just about removing us as 4 individual members of Parliament. They represent BN’s desperate attempt to prevent the emergence of truth in Parliament proceedings. They have severely damaged the dignity and integrity of Parliament as an institution.
We will continue to take the message of these and other injustices to the people of Malaysia.
Sivarasa Rasiah, Member of Parliament for Subang 17 December 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Minority Report presented by YB Karpal Singh and YB Sivarasa
Click on this link to read the full text of the report
English Version
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45508335/Parliament-Privileges-Comm-Rep-FINAL-14-12-10
Versi Bahasa Malaysia
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45508204/Parliament-Minority-Report-Jkuasa-Hak-Dan-Keb-BM
English Version
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45508335/Parliament-Privileges-Comm-Rep-FINAL-14-12-10
Versi Bahasa Malaysia
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45508204/Parliament-Minority-Report-Jkuasa-Hak-Dan-Keb-BM
A Black Day for the voters of SUBANG
YB SIVARASA telah dihalau keluar dewan parlimen semata-semata kerana mempertahankan hak uintuk bersuara bagi rakyat.
Beliau cuba membuat penjelasan dan meminta penjelasan daripada Yang Dipertua Speaker mengenai peraturan mesyuarat bersangkutan keputusan Speaker menolak Usul Tergempar yang dibawa beliau. Namun Speaker enggan memberi peluang kepada beliau untuk membuat demikian dan apabila YB Sivarasa cuba mempertahankan hak beliau sebagai Ahli Parlimen untuk bersuara, Speaker membuat keputusan untuk beliau digantung kehadiran dalam dewan selama sehari.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/150837
Beliau cuba membuat penjelasan dan meminta penjelasan daripada Yang Dipertua Speaker mengenai peraturan mesyuarat bersangkutan keputusan Speaker menolak Usul Tergempar yang dibawa beliau. Namun Speaker enggan memberi peluang kepada beliau untuk membuat demikian dan apabila YB Sivarasa cuba mempertahankan hak beliau sebagai Ahli Parlimen untuk bersuara, Speaker membuat keputusan untuk beliau digantung kehadiran dalam dewan selama sehari.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/150837
WikiLEAKS - Sivarasa Submits Emergency Motion in Parliament
to watch the press conference:
http://www.malaysiakini.tv/video/20688/sivarasa-debate-wikileaks-cables.html
”Najib Razak has his neck on the line in connection with a high-profile murder case”
”Najib’s political fortunes continue to be haunted by the ... murder scandal”
Ini adalah antara dua petikan daripada WikiLeaks yang dilapurkan dalam akhbar Australia - The Sydney Morning Herald - yang menjadi asas bagi Isu Tergempar yang dipohon oleh YB Sivarasa.
14hb Disember 2010
YB Tan Sri Datuk Pandikar Amin Bin Haji Mulia
Yang di-Pertua Dewan Rakyat
Tan Sri Yang di-Pertua,
PERKARA: USUL MENANGGUHKAN MESYUARAT DI BAWAH PERATURAN MESYUARAT 18
Merujuk kepada Peraturan Mesyuarat 18 (1) dan (2), dengan ini saya mohon mencadangkan supaya ditangguhkan Majlis Mesyuarat dengan tujuan merundingkan perkara tertentu berkenaan kepentingan orang ramai yang berkehendak disegerakan.
Saya , Sivarasa Rasiah [ Subang ] mohon mencadangkan:
”Bahawa Dewan Rakyat membincangkan kenyataan-kenyataan yang sangat serius yang dibuat oleh En Bilahari Kausikan dan Peter Ho ( pada masa itu pegawai-pegawai kanan di Kementerian Luar Negeri di Singapura ) yang dilaporkan di surat khabar Australia ”Sydney Morning Herald” baru-baru ini pada 12hb Disember 2010 yang berbunyi saperti berikut:
”A lack of competent leadership is a real problem in Malaysia, Mr Kausikan said,citing the need for Najib - now Malaysia’s Prime Minister – to ”prevail politically in order to avoid prosecution” in connection with a 2006 murder investigation linked to one of Razak’s aides
”Najib Razak has his neck on the line in connection with a high-profile murder case” Mr. Kausikan said.
”Najib’s political fortunes continue to be haunted by the ... murder scandal”
Yang Di-Pertua,
Pada 12hb Disember 2010, surat khabar Australia Sydney Morning Herald telah menerbitkan isu kandungan beberapa kabel-kabel sulit yang ditulis oleh pegawai kanan daripada State Department, Amerika Syarikat di 2008 dan 2009 yang dibocor kepada surat khabar tersebut secara eksklusif daripada laman web ”Wikileaks”. Kabel-kabel tersebut, antara lain, menerangkan kandongan perbualan diantara pegawai-pegawai Amerika Syarikat dan tiga pegawai kanan daripada Kementerian Luar Negeri Singapura bernama Peter Ho, Bilahari Kausikan dan Tommy Koh.
Antara kenyataan-kenyataan yang dilaporkan yang dibuat oleh Bilahari Kausikan dan Peter Ho adalah saperti yang disebut di atas.
Ada juga penerbitan di surat khabar tersebut yang berpunca daripada satu kabel pada November 2008 yang melapurkan perbualan di antara pegawai Amerika Syarikat dengan pegawai perisik Australia di mana pegawai Australia menceritakan pandangan pegawai perisik Singapura dan Menteri Kanan Lee Kuan Yew tentang tuduhan liwat terhadap Ketua Pembangkang Malaysia Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Kenyataan-kenyataan tersebut di atas oleh En Kausikan dan En Peter Ho dengan jelas membawa maksud bahawa kedua-dua pegawai kanan Singapura tersebut mempercayai bahawa Perdana Menteri Najib adalah terbabit dalam skandal pembunuhan Altantuya Shaaribuu. Impak yang sangat berat kepada imej Perdana Menteri dan Malaysia tidak dapat dinafikan.
Setakat sekarang, kabel-kabel tersebut tidak dapat dikesan di dalam koleksi kabel-kabel yang telah didedahkan kepada umum di laman ”Wikileaks”. Ini bermaksud rakyat Malaysia masih tidak boleh menilai kandongan kabel-kabel ini secara terus dan memutuskan asas laporan di Sydney Morning Herald.
Yang di Pertua
Oleh kerana tuduhan-tuduhan yang dibuat adalah sangat berat dan membangkitkan, pertamanya, perkaitan penglibatan Perdana Menteri dalam pembunuhan Altantuya dan, keduanya, kes liwat Ketua Pembangkang (kedua2nya pemimpin tertinggi negara), memang menjadi kepentingan negara untuk menghentikan perkara ini secepat mungkin dan mengelakkan spekulasi dengan mendapatkan kabel-kabel tersebut.
Saya berpendapat adalah wajar untuk Dewan yang Mulia ini membincangkan serta merta sama ada perlunya kita meminta jasa baik State Department Amerika Syarikat untuk mendedahkan semua kabel-kabel yang berkaitan Malaysia untuk tempoh berkenaan termasuk yang dipetik oleh Sydney Morning Herald.
Atas perkara yang tertentu ini yang melibatkan kepentingan rakyat umum yang perlu disegerakan, saya mohon usul ini dibincangkan.
Sekian.
Yang benar,
R.SIVARASA
AHLI PARLIMEN SUBANG
http://www.malaysiakini.tv/video/20688/sivarasa-debate-wikileaks-cables.html
”Najib Razak has his neck on the line in connection with a high-profile murder case”
”Najib’s political fortunes continue to be haunted by the ... murder scandal”
Ini adalah antara dua petikan daripada WikiLeaks yang dilapurkan dalam akhbar Australia - The Sydney Morning Herald - yang menjadi asas bagi Isu Tergempar yang dipohon oleh YB Sivarasa.
14hb Disember 2010
YB Tan Sri Datuk Pandikar Amin Bin Haji Mulia
Yang di-Pertua Dewan Rakyat
Tan Sri Yang di-Pertua,
PERKARA: USUL MENANGGUHKAN MESYUARAT DI BAWAH PERATURAN MESYUARAT 18
Merujuk kepada Peraturan Mesyuarat 18 (1) dan (2), dengan ini saya mohon mencadangkan supaya ditangguhkan Majlis Mesyuarat dengan tujuan merundingkan perkara tertentu berkenaan kepentingan orang ramai yang berkehendak disegerakan.
Saya , Sivarasa Rasiah [ Subang ] mohon mencadangkan:
”Bahawa Dewan Rakyat membincangkan kenyataan-kenyataan yang sangat serius yang dibuat oleh En Bilahari Kausikan dan Peter Ho ( pada masa itu pegawai-pegawai kanan di Kementerian Luar Negeri di Singapura ) yang dilaporkan di surat khabar Australia ”Sydney Morning Herald” baru-baru ini pada 12hb Disember 2010 yang berbunyi saperti berikut:
”A lack of competent leadership is a real problem in Malaysia, Mr Kausikan said,citing the need for Najib - now Malaysia’s Prime Minister – to ”prevail politically in order to avoid prosecution” in connection with a 2006 murder investigation linked to one of Razak’s aides
”Najib Razak has his neck on the line in connection with a high-profile murder case” Mr. Kausikan said.
”Najib’s political fortunes continue to be haunted by the ... murder scandal”
Yang Di-Pertua,
Pada 12hb Disember 2010, surat khabar Australia Sydney Morning Herald telah menerbitkan isu kandungan beberapa kabel-kabel sulit yang ditulis oleh pegawai kanan daripada State Department, Amerika Syarikat di 2008 dan 2009 yang dibocor kepada surat khabar tersebut secara eksklusif daripada laman web ”Wikileaks”. Kabel-kabel tersebut, antara lain, menerangkan kandongan perbualan diantara pegawai-pegawai Amerika Syarikat dan tiga pegawai kanan daripada Kementerian Luar Negeri Singapura bernama Peter Ho, Bilahari Kausikan dan Tommy Koh.
Antara kenyataan-kenyataan yang dilaporkan yang dibuat oleh Bilahari Kausikan dan Peter Ho adalah saperti yang disebut di atas.
Ada juga penerbitan di surat khabar tersebut yang berpunca daripada satu kabel pada November 2008 yang melapurkan perbualan di antara pegawai Amerika Syarikat dengan pegawai perisik Australia di mana pegawai Australia menceritakan pandangan pegawai perisik Singapura dan Menteri Kanan Lee Kuan Yew tentang tuduhan liwat terhadap Ketua Pembangkang Malaysia Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Kenyataan-kenyataan tersebut di atas oleh En Kausikan dan En Peter Ho dengan jelas membawa maksud bahawa kedua-dua pegawai kanan Singapura tersebut mempercayai bahawa Perdana Menteri Najib adalah terbabit dalam skandal pembunuhan Altantuya Shaaribuu. Impak yang sangat berat kepada imej Perdana Menteri dan Malaysia tidak dapat dinafikan.
Setakat sekarang, kabel-kabel tersebut tidak dapat dikesan di dalam koleksi kabel-kabel yang telah didedahkan kepada umum di laman ”Wikileaks”. Ini bermaksud rakyat Malaysia masih tidak boleh menilai kandongan kabel-kabel ini secara terus dan memutuskan asas laporan di Sydney Morning Herald.
Yang di Pertua
Oleh kerana tuduhan-tuduhan yang dibuat adalah sangat berat dan membangkitkan, pertamanya, perkaitan penglibatan Perdana Menteri dalam pembunuhan Altantuya dan, keduanya, kes liwat Ketua Pembangkang (kedua2nya pemimpin tertinggi negara), memang menjadi kepentingan negara untuk menghentikan perkara ini secepat mungkin dan mengelakkan spekulasi dengan mendapatkan kabel-kabel tersebut.
Saya berpendapat adalah wajar untuk Dewan yang Mulia ini membincangkan serta merta sama ada perlunya kita meminta jasa baik State Department Amerika Syarikat untuk mendedahkan semua kabel-kabel yang berkaitan Malaysia untuk tempoh berkenaan termasuk yang dipetik oleh Sydney Morning Herald.
Atas perkara yang tertentu ini yang melibatkan kepentingan rakyat umum yang perlu disegerakan, saya mohon usul ini dibincangkan.
Sekian.
Yang benar,
R.SIVARASA
AHLI PARLIMEN SUBANG
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Alarmed over 'extrajudicial killings' .
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysian rights activists today demanded action over "horrifying" numbers of killings by police over the past decade, with the dead mostly Indonesians and ethnic Indians.
These are extrajudicial killings. The numbers are very significant. It is a major shock to us," R Sivarasa, a human rights lawyer and opposition lawmakers, told a press conference organised by leading rights group Suaram.
They cited police data produced during a recent trial that showed 279 alleged criminals were shot dead over a period of nine years from 2000. Nine people were killed by police in 2000 and the number surged to 88 in 2009.
"We are seeing a pervasive culture of impunity in the police force resulting in gross human rights violations. Those shot dead are called criminals," Sivarasa said.
He said that police typically defended their actions by stating that they tried to arrest the individuals but came under attack with machetes and that the suspect was shot dead in self-defence.
Of the 279 killed by police, 113 were Indonesian citizens, while 61 were ethnic Malaysian Indians and 42 were Malay Muslims – leading to charges that certain ethnic groups are particularly targeted.
A patrolman is currently on trial for the fatal shooting of a 15-year-old boy during a police car chase in April. Last month three youths aged 15 to 23 were shot dead following another car chase.
In all those cases police said they acted in self-defence.
N Surendran, an activist with Lawyers for Liberty, said police were too quick to open fire.
"There is a sense of shock and horror among the public. People are upset. Without a doubt the police force has members who are trigger-happy with a culture to shoot to kill," he told the press conference.
Surendran urged the government to intervene and "urgently put an end" to the deaths.
"We are shocked and horrified. The 279 deaths is an excessively high number," he said.
These are extrajudicial killings. The numbers are very significant. It is a major shock to us," R Sivarasa, a human rights lawyer and opposition lawmakers, told a press conference organised by leading rights group Suaram.
They cited police data produced during a recent trial that showed 279 alleged criminals were shot dead over a period of nine years from 2000. Nine people were killed by police in 2000 and the number surged to 88 in 2009.
"We are seeing a pervasive culture of impunity in the police force resulting in gross human rights violations. Those shot dead are called criminals," Sivarasa said.
He said that police typically defended their actions by stating that they tried to arrest the individuals but came under attack with machetes and that the suspect was shot dead in self-defence.
Of the 279 killed by police, 113 were Indonesian citizens, while 61 were ethnic Malaysian Indians and 42 were Malay Muslims – leading to charges that certain ethnic groups are particularly targeted.
A patrolman is currently on trial for the fatal shooting of a 15-year-old boy during a police car chase in April. Last month three youths aged 15 to 23 were shot dead following another car chase.
In all those cases police said they acted in self-defence.
N Surendran, an activist with Lawyers for Liberty, said police were too quick to open fire.
"There is a sense of shock and horror among the public. People are upset. Without a doubt the police force has members who are trigger-happy with a culture to shoot to kill," he told the press conference.
Surendran urged the government to intervene and "urgently put an end" to the deaths.
"We are shocked and horrified. The 279 deaths is an excessively high number," he said.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Sivarasa Speaks for Justice
'Did my son beg for mercy before being shot?'Aidila Razak
Nov 29, 10
12:26pmShare 11There is nothing that she wants more than to see the person who killed her child be hauled up to court to face justice.
But for now, Norhafizah Mad Razali (left in pix) just cannot help thinking of her son's last moments before he was shot dead by police.
"I keep thinking what he was thinking, how he felt before the fatal shot. Did he plead for mercy? Was he crying in pain?" she said in tears, while her husband, Shapiei Zainal Abidin who in spite of his own wet eyes tried to offer comfort.
Their son, Mohd Shamil Hafiz Shapiei, was shot dead about 4am on Nov 13 on a street in Glenmarie in Shah Alam, Selangor. He was about a week away from turning 16.
He was shot once in the chest and in the middle of his forehead, an image which will not leave his parents' minds.
"Call it a mother's instinct...I don't know how or why, but the words just slipped out of my mouth when I saw his body: 'He has been murdered'," she said when met at the low-cost flat where they live in Kota Damansara.
The police have claimed they fired in self-defence, as Mohd Shamil and two others - Mohd Hanafi Omar (right), 22 and Hairul Nizam Tuah, 20, said to be from Cheras - had allegedly charged at police with machetes after attempting to rob a petrol station.
All three sustained similar gunshots to the chest and head, with Hairul Nizam also shot at the side of his head while Mohd Hanafi was shot at the top of his head.
All the bullets passed through the bodies, with exit wounds on Hairul Nizam's body at a lower part of his head and torso compared to the entry wound.
Headlines immediately after the incident screamed 'Teen Terrorist', with reports quoting the police as saying that Mohd Shamil was a seasoned criminal and a ringleader of Geng Minyak- a gang that had been targeting petrol stations across the Klang Valley.
If the manner in which the youths were shot dead was not enough to raise their suspicion, it was the police statements which have steeled the families' resolve to get more answers.
Hairul Nizam's sister Norliza Tuah took her concerns to their parliamentarian R Sivarasa (left) of PKR.
"I kept thinking of the way he was shot. The trajectory of the bullet (evident from the wounds) makes it seem like he was shot from a higher point. Did the police climb a tree to shoot him?
"My brother was afraid of the police and refused to drive if he didn't have his driver's licence on him because he was afraid of getting caught. How could he have charged at police with a machete?
“And where is this machete? I want to see it. We have not been shown anything that was found on (the deceased) and the police kept asking us what colour his helmet is, but he left his helmet at the cyber cafe."
Fourth person involved?
The helmet and the keys to the Hairul Nizam's motorcycle had been passed to Norliza on the morning of Nov 13 by his friends who had waited for him to return to the nearby cyber cafe where they were.
The friends told her that Hairul Nizam and Mohd Hanafi were there at 3.30am that day when someone in a Proton Waja - she does not know who - stopped by the cyber cafe and invited them out for supper.
"(Hairul Nizam) asked his friends to wait for him and said he would be back in a short while. They waited until morning but he never came back," she said.
The last time Norhafizah saw her son was at around 2.30am, when he came to the tomyam stall which she operates next to the flats.
"He always hung around with other youths who live here and played checkers. His father saw him at around 3am," she said.
Although only 15, Mohd Hafiz had much time on his hands as he was no longer attending school, having dropped out of Tahfiz (religious) school last year.
Norhafizah said he was not academically inclined and that he had asked her to search for a place for him to take up vocational training.
The teen's absence was noticed early in the morning as he has not returned home - something he had never done before.
"His sister was receiving an award for academic excellence (on Nov 13) and he told me he wanted to go to the ceremony. I called him several times but his phone was turned off," she said.
No drugs or alcohol found
Answers, albeit vague, were found in the morgue of Tuanku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital, where forensic pathologist Khairul Azman Ibrahim informed them of their worst nightmare.
"We asked the police officer who was there to tell us more but he only said that he was not at the scene of the incident. No one could answer us properly," said Norliza.
But what they did find out was that none of the youths were under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they died, leaving question marks over why they would charge at armed officers with machetes.
Just like slain teen Aminulrasyid Amzah's (right)family, who had in vain sought an apology from the police for labelling the 14-year-old a criminal, these families too cannot fathom that the youths were involved in criminal activity.
Also on their minds is the identity of the mysterious fourth person in the Proton Waja, in which police said the youths had sped off.
“That is for the police to find out, I don't want to speculate. I just want justice for my son, for my children,” Norhaliza said.
Her second son has been taunted by his peers who have been telling him that his brother was a criminal, while her four-year-old is now asking his parents to buy him a gun.
“The little one keeps asking us where his brother is, and when we don't answer he says, 'He is dead, shot by police...police are bad',” she said.
More than clearing the name of their loved one, Hairul Nizam's family also wants this to be the case that changes the way police conduct operations.
“Someone has been charged in the Aminulrasyid case…(but) there is still something wrong with the system in which the police operate.If this could happen to our family, it could happen to another family too.
“Maybe the real Geng Minyak is still out there and my brother was the scapegoat,” Norliza (left in pix) said.
The family has since filed a police report about their suspicion over the shooting.
An emergency motion on the issue, which Sivarasa attempted to raise in Parliament on Thursday, wasrejected.
Mohd Hanafi's family filed a similar police report today.
Senior Shah Alam police officers could not be contacted for a response.
Nov 29, 10
12:26pmShare 11There is nothing that she wants more than to see the person who killed her child be hauled up to court to face justice.
But for now, Norhafizah Mad Razali (left in pix) just cannot help thinking of her son's last moments before he was shot dead by police.
"I keep thinking what he was thinking, how he felt before the fatal shot. Did he plead for mercy? Was he crying in pain?" she said in tears, while her husband, Shapiei Zainal Abidin who in spite of his own wet eyes tried to offer comfort.
Their son, Mohd Shamil Hafiz Shapiei, was shot dead about 4am on Nov 13 on a street in Glenmarie in Shah Alam, Selangor. He was about a week away from turning 16.
He was shot once in the chest and in the middle of his forehead, an image which will not leave his parents' minds.
"Call it a mother's instinct...I don't know how or why, but the words just slipped out of my mouth when I saw his body: 'He has been murdered'," she said when met at the low-cost flat where they live in Kota Damansara.
The police have claimed they fired in self-defence, as Mohd Shamil and two others - Mohd Hanafi Omar (right), 22 and Hairul Nizam Tuah, 20, said to be from Cheras - had allegedly charged at police with machetes after attempting to rob a petrol station.
All three sustained similar gunshots to the chest and head, with Hairul Nizam also shot at the side of his head while Mohd Hanafi was shot at the top of his head.
All the bullets passed through the bodies, with exit wounds on Hairul Nizam's body at a lower part of his head and torso compared to the entry wound.
Headlines immediately after the incident screamed 'Teen Terrorist', with reports quoting the police as saying that Mohd Shamil was a seasoned criminal and a ringleader of Geng Minyak- a gang that had been targeting petrol stations across the Klang Valley.
If the manner in which the youths were shot dead was not enough to raise their suspicion, it was the police statements which have steeled the families' resolve to get more answers.
Hairul Nizam's sister Norliza Tuah took her concerns to their parliamentarian R Sivarasa (left) of PKR.
"I kept thinking of the way he was shot. The trajectory of the bullet (evident from the wounds) makes it seem like he was shot from a higher point. Did the police climb a tree to shoot him?
"My brother was afraid of the police and refused to drive if he didn't have his driver's licence on him because he was afraid of getting caught. How could he have charged at police with a machete?
“And where is this machete? I want to see it. We have not been shown anything that was found on (the deceased) and the police kept asking us what colour his helmet is, but he left his helmet at the cyber cafe."
Fourth person involved?
The helmet and the keys to the Hairul Nizam's motorcycle had been passed to Norliza on the morning of Nov 13 by his friends who had waited for him to return to the nearby cyber cafe where they were.
The friends told her that Hairul Nizam and Mohd Hanafi were there at 3.30am that day when someone in a Proton Waja - she does not know who - stopped by the cyber cafe and invited them out for supper.
"(Hairul Nizam) asked his friends to wait for him and said he would be back in a short while. They waited until morning but he never came back," she said.
The last time Norhafizah saw her son was at around 2.30am, when he came to the tomyam stall which she operates next to the flats.
"He always hung around with other youths who live here and played checkers. His father saw him at around 3am," she said.
Although only 15, Mohd Hafiz had much time on his hands as he was no longer attending school, having dropped out of Tahfiz (religious) school last year.
Norhafizah said he was not academically inclined and that he had asked her to search for a place for him to take up vocational training.
The teen's absence was noticed early in the morning as he has not returned home - something he had never done before.
"His sister was receiving an award for academic excellence (on Nov 13) and he told me he wanted to go to the ceremony. I called him several times but his phone was turned off," she said.
No drugs or alcohol found
Answers, albeit vague, were found in the morgue of Tuanku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital, where forensic pathologist Khairul Azman Ibrahim informed them of their worst nightmare.
"We asked the police officer who was there to tell us more but he only said that he was not at the scene of the incident. No one could answer us properly," said Norliza.
But what they did find out was that none of the youths were under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they died, leaving question marks over why they would charge at armed officers with machetes.
Just like slain teen Aminulrasyid Amzah's (right)family, who had in vain sought an apology from the police for labelling the 14-year-old a criminal, these families too cannot fathom that the youths were involved in criminal activity.
Also on their minds is the identity of the mysterious fourth person in the Proton Waja, in which police said the youths had sped off.
“That is for the police to find out, I don't want to speculate. I just want justice for my son, for my children,” Norhaliza said.
Her second son has been taunted by his peers who have been telling him that his brother was a criminal, while her four-year-old is now asking his parents to buy him a gun.
“The little one keeps asking us where his brother is, and when we don't answer he says, 'He is dead, shot by police...police are bad',” she said.
More than clearing the name of their loved one, Hairul Nizam's family also wants this to be the case that changes the way police conduct operations.
“Someone has been charged in the Aminulrasyid case…(but) there is still something wrong with the system in which the police operate.If this could happen to our family, it could happen to another family too.
“Maybe the real Geng Minyak is still out there and my brother was the scapegoat,” Norliza (left in pix) said.
The family has since filed a police report about their suspicion over the shooting.
An emergency motion on the issue, which Sivarasa attempted to raise in Parliament on Thursday, wasrejected.
Mohd Hanafi's family filed a similar police report today.
Senior Shah Alam police officers could not be contacted for a response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
