The proposed amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959

PRESS STATEMENT by SIVARASA RASIAH, Member of Parliament for Subang on the proposed amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959

The amendments proposed by the BN Government to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 are intended to create powers of detention without trial similar to that which previously existed in laws like the Internal Security Act 1960 ( ISA ) and the Emergency ( Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance 1960 ( EO).

These laws were proudly proclaimed repealed in 2011 by Prime Minister Najib in an attempt to shore up his democratic credentials. However the immediate introduction of the new Security Offences ( Special Measures ) Act  or SOSMA replete with oppressive features quickly dented that attempt.  Now the claims to any democratic credentials go up completely in smoke with the wholesale reintroduction of detention without trial with these amendments.

The new amendments invoke the draconian Article 149 of the Federal Constitution and reintroduce 2 year periods of detention which are renewable with any meaningful judicial review excluded.  The main difference now is that the decision to detain for 2 years is made by a board chaired by a judge and not the Minister. Apart from this, the process is fundamentally the same. It is draconian and unacceptable.

We note that MCA and Gerakan leaders have voiced opposition to these amendments. We wait to see if they will vote against this Bill when presented tomorrow.

A question also arises whether the Attorney-General has consistently misled the public with his recent statements that he is opposed to a reintroduction of detention without trial. He cannot plead ignorance of these Bills which the BN government will introduce next week; after all, they are drafted under his supervision. One wonders why the AG as recently as a few weeks ago on 24.8.2013 in a forum organized by the Home Ministry had said that there was no need today for such laws and that the police had been able to deal with violent criminals such as Botak Chin without recourse to such laws.

Equally relevant is the question whether the Minister responsible for legal affairs in the Prime Minister's Department, Nancy Shukri, was similarly misleading the Bar Council when she said at a meeting with them on 18.9.2013 as follows:  ( I quote from the Bar Council website) 

"There are some rumours (or perhaps I shall say as hearsay) that the Government is planning to re-introduce laws that are similar to the EO. These are all out-dated matters that the public should not be discussing anymore as we are no more going back to laws which are obsolescent to our society and needs."

She then added as follows:
 " At this juncture too, let me stress that the Government is concern with the rise in violent crimes and organised crimes in the country. Recently, we see more notorious crimes happening. In times of economic challenges, we are drawn backwards by these ferocious crimes. Please be assured that the Government is committed to address this issue. The general safety of public and the image of the country are of utmost priority to the Government. The Government is aware of the negative implications associated with these brutal-organised crimes. The Government however is not recommending new legislations to deal with these crimes. The Government will not be enacting new laws. If there is anything that the Government would be doing, is just amending some of the provisions in the existing laws. The Government believes these criminals can be tried and punished under the existing criminal legislations in the country."

So, the clear impression is given of just "amending some provisions" and using "existing criminal legislation". 

However, the far-reaching amendments, whilst technically not being "new legislation", are clearly contradictory to the impression given.
The Home Ministry had notice from 16 September 2011 that the EO would be repealed.
They had about 6 - 9 months do deal with the existing detainees. Why were those detainees held in Simpang Rengam and other detention centres then not investigated thoroughly and charged in court within that period before release? Those charged in court for violent crimes could also be denied bail pending their trials to ensure they were not continuing their criminal activities.
Why then only in mid 2013 through the so-called Ops Cantas is the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 suddenly being invoked a year after these detainees have been released? Why did the Government wait until 2013 to suddenly start talking about increased violent crime purportedly due to the release of detainees resulting from repeal of the EO 2 years prior? 
These facts point to a colossal failure of policing and management of security on the part of the BN government. The Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the IGP need to provide the public an explanation.
Sivarasa Rasiah
Member of Parliament for Subang
Member of Central Leadership Council ( Majlis Pimpinan Pusat ) Parti Keadilan Rakyat

30th September 2013

Soalan-soalan Parlimen daripada YB Sivarasa

Parlimen akan bersidang semula selama dua minggu bermula 23hb September. Berikut adalah soalan-soalan daripada Ahli Parlimen Subang

Soalan Jawab Lisan

1. Tuan R. Sivarasa [Subang] meminta Perdana Menteri  menyatakan  berapa peratus ( dan jumlah barrel ) minyak mentah ( crude oil ) yang dikeluarkan di Malaysia oleh PETRONAS dan syarikat-syarikat lain ditapis ( refined ) di Malaysia dan untuk yang ditapis diluar Negara, peratusannya dan tempat-tempat penapisan.

2. Tuan R.Sivarasa [ Subang ] meminta Menteri Dalam Negeri  menyatakan sebab tidak meluluskan cadangan pembentukan polis bantuan di negeri Selangor bagi membanteras jenayah yang semakin berleluasa, sedangkan bilangan anggota polis yang ditugaskan tidak cukup untuk memantau jenayah untuk menjamin keselamatan rakyat.

3. Tuan R.Sivarasa [ Subang] meminta Perdana Menteri menyatakan jumlah belanja untuk Talentcorp  dari penubuhannya dan berapa warga Malaysia Talentcorp telah berjaya  membawa balek daripada luar Negara sehingga sekarang.

4. Tuan R.Sivarasa [ Subang ] meminta Perdana Menteri menyatakan jumlah yuran yang telah dibayar oleh PEMANDU kepada syarikat perunding McKinsey daripada penubuhan PEMANDU hingga sekarang ( termasuk pecahan bayaran mengikut tahun )

5. Tuan R.Sivarasa [Subang] meminta Menteri Luar Negeri menyatakan langkah-langkah yang diambil oleh pihak kerajaan dan perkembangan terkini mengenai proses pengesahan (accession) Statute Rome Mahkamah Jenayah Antarabangsa (Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court). 

6. Tuan R.Sivarasa [ Subang ] meminta Menteri Dalam Negeri menyatakan kenapa blogger bergelaran “Papagomo” atau  Wan Muhammad yang ditangkap pada 7hb Mei 2013 tidak didakwa sebab menghasut kebencian dan keganasan dengan penulisan beliau yang terang-terang menghasut kebenchian dan keganasan atas kaum lain dan juga individu-individu.

7. Tuan R.Sivarasa [ Subang ] meminta Menteri Pendidikan menyatakan sama ada kerajaan akan meningkatkan peruntukan  kepada Perbadanan Tabung Pembangunan Kemahiran (PTPK) supaya mewujudkan 1.32 juta peluang pekerjaan di sektor teknikal dan vokasional menjelang tahun 2020. Peruntukan bagi PTPK dikatakan tidak seimbang jika dibanding dengan Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional (PTPTN) yang diberi sebanyak RM5billion setahun.

8. Tuan R.Sivarasa [Subang] meminta Perdana Menteri menyatakan samada kerajaan setuju tidak menghadiri persidangan ketua-ketua negara Komanwel ( CHOGM) di Colombo tahun ini sebagai tanda bantahan kerajaan terhadap jenayah perang ( war crimes ) yang dilakukan di May 2009 oleh President Rajapakse dan tentera Sri Lanka bila membunuh 50,000-100,000 orang Tamil bukan tentera yang tidak bersenjata;  dan juga senaraikan Rajapakse sebagai seorang penjenayah perang.

9. Tuan R.Sivarasa [Subang] meminta Menteri Industri dan Perdagangan Antarabangsa  menyatakan samada kerajaan sanggup, dalam rundingan Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), mendesak “carve-out “ atau pembatalan secara menyeluruh semua peruntukkan-peruntukkan yang akan menghalang pembuatan perubatan generic yang akan mengakibatkan pengingkatan kos ubat di dalam negara.

10. Tuan R.Sivarasa [Subang] meminta Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan menyatakan kenapa kerajaan masih membiarkan pemaju-pemaju melaksanakan skim-skim  DIBS ( Developer Interest Bearing Scheme ) yang telah diharamkan di Singapore di 2009 meskipun skim-skim tersebut membawa akibat peningkatan harga hartanah di pasaran.

Soalan Jawab Bertulis
11. Tuan R.Sivarasa [Subang] meminta Menteri Pendidikan menyatakan jumlah mahasiswa yang diterima masuk dalam semua IPTA untuk tahun 2010, 2011 dan 2012 menurut pecahan kaum, dan juga jumlah yang diterima masuk untuk fakulti-fakulti  undang-undang, kejuruteraan, perubatan, dan pergigian meenurut pecahan kaum.

12. Tuan R. Sivarasa [ Subang] meminta Menteri Pendidikan  menyatakan jumlah penuntut yang diterimamasuk dalam semua maktab-maktab perguruan untuk tahun 2010, 2011 dan 2012 menurut pecahan kaum.

13. Tuan R.Sivarasa [ Subang] meminta Menteri Pendidikan menyatakan senarai nama, no KP, alamat, jantina dan gred yang  didapati oleh 1500 penuntut dalam katergori India yang dikatakan telah menerima 1500 tempat-tempat matriculasi.

14. Tuan R.Sivarasa [ Subang] meminta Menteri Dalam Negeri menyatakan jumlah peruntukan untuk empat buah balai polis di Parlimen Subang iaitu Balai-balai Kg Baru S dan Kota Damanasar ( IPD PJ ) dan Sg Plong dan Sg Buluh ( IPD Sg Buloh ) setiap tahun untuk tahun-tahun 2010, 2011 dan 2012.

15. Tuan R.Sivarasa [Subang] meminta Menteri Dalam Negeri menyatakan bilangan warganegara asing dan Malaysia yang dihukum gantung, yang masih menunggu hukuman gantung untuk dilaksanakan dan hukuman gantung yang telah dilaksanakan dari setiap tahun 2007 ke 2013 mengikut pecahan.

Corrupt practice and human trafficking of Bangladeshi nationals into Malaysia.

30th August 2013

PRESS STATEMENT by Sivarasa Rasiah

Credible information that I have received recently showed a substantial level of human trafficking from Dhaka to KLIA done very openly and facilitated by alleged corrupt practice at the visa issuance section of the Malaysian High Commission in Dhaka and Immigration personnel  in KLIA.

Since March this year, six direct flights a day arrive from Dhaka at KLIA – two by MAS, one by Biman Bangladesh Airlines, one by Regent Airways and one by United Airways carrying 900-1000 passengers.  A seventh flight has just been approved for Malindo Air effective from 26 August 2013 adding another approximately 180 passengers. Taking into account indirect flights with other airlines ( Thai Airways through Bangkok, Sri Lanka Airways through Colombo) the number of passengers arriving daily from Dhaka is easily around 1000 per day. Most of them arrive bearing 30 day tourist visas issued at the Malaysian High Commission at Dhaka. 

Enforcement agencies here should have immediately red-flagged the fact that a country like Bangla Desh is purportedly sending 1000 tourists a day to Malaysia, bearing in that even India has only 3 daily flights arriving a day at KLIA.

The information I have received shows a Bangladeshi  company called Union Tours and Travel Limited playing a key role in this large number.  This company was appointed by MAS as its General Sales Agent  in the second half of 2012 and succeeded recently in March in getting MAS to increase its daily flights from the long-standing daily flight to two flights daily.  Union Tours was also recently appointed by the Malaysian High Commission as the latest addition to a list of 25 companies appointed and authorize to facilitate applications for visas to Malaysia ( called visa submitting agents) .
The information received shows that large numbers of tourist visas are issued daily at the Malaysian High Commission in Dhaka facilitated by Union Tours and Travel Ltd involving the use of false documentation and payment of large fees of up to 32,000 Taka ( about RT 1300 ) for each tourist visa.  The official fee payable for a visa is actually 20 RM ( about 500 Taka ) with a permissible service charge of up to 1000 Taka.   

The information suggests that corrupt payments are used to smooth the process of visa issuance at the High Commission and also to ensure that there are no problems at check-in in Dhaka. Similarly, Immigration personnel in KLIA do not hinder the entry of the approximately 1000 so-called Bangladeshi “tourists” who arrive daily at KLIA.

I am told it is obvious at plain sight that many of those who arrive do not look like tourists and are in actual fact migrant workers who are on a one-way trip into Malaysia to find work. This raises the inference of corrupt practice at the KLIA end.

I have therefore lodged a police report today at Balai Polis Tropicana in order that that the various agencies can initiate investigations. I have also forwarded some documents in respect of the facts stated above. I will also be forwarding the same documents  to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission for their action.
I call upon the authorities to ensure a speedy and effective investigation.

To assist them, I have also given them the names and passport numbers of 5 Bangladeshi nationals who I am informed have obtained so-called “tourist” visas in the manner I have described above through Union Tours and Travel Limited. 
Such human trafficking makes victims of the migrant workers who will become undocumented and vulnerable to all forms of exploitation in Malaysia. Such acts are a serious crime.

These acts also deprive the Malaysian government of substantial revenue in the form of levies which are collected from workers who come in legally and documented properly.

A large unchecked flow of undocumented workers affects employment for locals in Malaysia and also raises social issues. Amongst the issues raised in the last general election campaign was the phenomenon of foreign workers being given blue IC’s and the right to vote.

I understand that such allegations of corrupt payments for tourist visas to Malaysia in Dhaka have been raised from time to time in the print media there.  I have also handed to the police today a copy of one example in 2009 where an article  dated 17the December 2009 in the daily SAMAKAL newspaper reports the allegation that an employee in the Malaysian High Commission collected 200 USD to issue a tourist visa.

Sivarasa Rasiah
Member of Parliament of Subang
Member of the Central Leadership Council of and Political Bureau of Parti Keadilan Rakyat

Ibu bapa dakwa polis bohong isu siasat pelajarKow Kwan Yee

| 5:23PM Ogos 27 2013
Sekumpulan ibu bapa pelajar SK Seri Pristana menafikan dakwaan Ketua Polis Daerah Sungai Buloh Supt Junaidi Bujang bahawa anggota pasukan itu tidak menyoal pelajar berhubung penggunaan bilik persalinan sebagai tempat makan di sekolah tersebut. 
Seorang eksekutif pemasaran yang hanya mahu dikenali sebagai Raj, 39, mendakwa anak perempuannya yang berusia sembilan tahun telah disoal oleh pegawai polis sebanyak dua kali semasa berada di kawasan sekolah antara bulan Julai dan Ogos. 
"Dia (anak perempuan Raj) begitu takut selepas disoal siasat oleh polis dan menangis tidak mahu pergi ke sekolah lagi. "Ketua Polis Daerah ini telah membuat satu pembohongan besar," kata Raj dalam sidang media bersama sembilan lagi ibu bapa pelajar  SK Pristana. 

Turut hadir dalam sidang media itu ialah Ahli Parlimen Subang R Sivarasa. 

Selain itu, beliau berkata lagi, sembilan ibu bapa lain juga mengadu bahawa anak mereka telah "diganggu" oleh pihak polis."Bagaimana mereka (polis) boleh bercakap dengan anak-anak kita tanpa kehadiran kita?," soal Raj. 

we need a Royal Commission immediately

Malaysian criminal justice system in complete disrepute ; we need a Royal Commission immediately

The shocking outcome of the Altantuya murder appeal in the Court of Appeal has the effect of bringing further and total disrepute to the Malaysian criminal justice system.

Keadilan has consistently maintained that the Altantuya High Court trial of Razak Baginda, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar had always been a manipulated process and done according to a prescribed script.

When the script was not followed at certain points in the initial stages, we saw the fallout. The most senior prosecutors in the Prosecution Division of the AG’s Chambers such as Dato Sallehudin and Dato Yusuf Zainal Abiden  were removed from the team when apparently they refused to play ball with a script that would result in the certain acquittal of Razak Baginda.  Sallehudin then resigned to go into private practice.

We also saw the trial moved to be heard before YA Zaki Yassin after YA N Segara refused bail to Razak on the basis of facts stated in Razak’s own affidavit. The movement was of course disguised in a reshuffle of cases in the Shah Alam High Court.

There were still occasional out of script moments during the trial when a witness Burma Oyunchimeg @ Amy tried to tell the Court about the photograph shown to her by Altantuya showing Razak, Najib and her in a restaurant in Paris and was stopped by objections from the defence, prosecution and the court.

The rest of the trial mostly played out according to the written script including the acquittal of Razak Baginda.
Keadilan had consistently maintained earlier that key witnesses such as DSP Musa Safiri, Nasir Safar, Prime Minister Najib, his wife Rosmah and his brother Nazim Razak should all have been called as relevant witnesses – not so much to establish the guilt of Sirul and Azilah but to establish who had directed Sirul and Azilah to kill Altantuya. 

After the revelations of Deepak Tethwani and Americk Singh Sidhu,  it was obvious that they and Cecil Abraham were also relevant witnesses.

Private investigator Balasubramaniam had in his public statements detailed Musa’s involvement in the episode and the link between Musa and Razak Baginda.  The key question to be answered was always  -who was directing Musa as Razak clearly had no authority to direct key police personnel.  Musa at that time was Najib’s ADC.
Nasir Safar, Prime Minister Najib’s private secretary of 20 years standing at the material time ( no longer now )  was identified by Balasubramaniam as present on the night of the murder on 19th October 2006 in front of Razak Baginda’s house in Bukit Damansara driving around slowly surveying the scene before Sirul, Azilah and woman policeman L/Corp Rohaniza Roslan arrived later to take away Altantuya who was in front of the house with Bala.

Najib, Rosmah and Nazim have all been implicated by public statements by Balasubramaniam, Deepak and Americk Singh Sidhu in the making of Bala’s 2nd SD which was done to obliterate all references to the alleged relationship between Najib and Altantuya in Bala’s 1st SD.

When the High Court judge YA Zaki said he had a problem establishing motive, it would be obvious to all and sundry that witnesses such as Musa, Nasir Safar, Najib, Rosmah, Nazim, Deepak, Cecil Abraham amongst others would be highly relevant to motive. But of course none were called to give evidence during the trial.

The acquittal of Razak Baginda without his defence being called was highly questionable. Also questionable was the decision of the AG to not appeal. The AG’s Chambers routinely appeals verdicts against them in criminal trials; they had also made repeated and consistent public statements that they had a good case against Razak – why then did they not appeal?

It is our view that there was sufficient evidence during the trial to convict Azilah and Sirul on the evidence of Bala, Lance Corporal Rohaniza, the phone records showing constant communication between Azilah and Razak from 18 October before and after the murder, the fact that Altantuya’s jewellery was found in Sirul’s house, CCTV footage in Hotel Malaya ( where Altantuya was staying ) on 18 October showing Sirul and Azilah’s presence there, Altantuya’s blood stains on slippers in Sirul’s car, the use of C4 explosives and other evidence presented. There could be no doubt that Sirul and Azilah were the last to be seen with Altantuya.

It is our view that even if the Court of Appeal found defects in the manner the High Court judge analyzed the evidence and in the conduct of the prosecution in presenting the case, the proper order to make in this case was to order a retrial and NOT grant an acquittal, particularly when the defect was that a key witnesses such as Musa Safiri was not called. There is ample power under the law in section 60 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to order a retrial which is regularly done in appeals.

However the judgment of the Court of Appeal again highlights aspects of the shoddy prosecution highlighting in particular the omission to call Musa Safiri. However the omission is not just to call Musa but also the many others stated above, Musa, Nasir Safar, Najib, Rosmah, Nazim, Deepak, Cecil Abraham amongst others.

The question raised by the Court of Appeal about the failure of the prosecution to call a key witness Musa Safiri is only one of many questions to be asked about this failed prosecution. Any independent investigator would be asking why persons linked closely to Najib such as Musa Safiri and Nasir Safar are linked to the murder?  Najib’s direct involvement in the making of Bala’s 2nd SD raises questions about his motives here.

We therefore call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the failed prosecution. We had already earlier called it a failed prosecution because of the acquittal of Razak Baginda and the gross failure to identify and prosecute those who directed the killing of Altantuya.  However the failed prosecution has taken a ludicrous twist with the acquittal of Sirul and Azilah as now the Malaysian criminal justice system sinks into complete disrepute in the eyes of the world. A Royal Commission is necessary to start the process of rescuing its credibility. Will the Cabinet sit ( without the presence of Prime Minister Najib ) and make a decision?

Sivarasa Rasiah, Member of Parliament for Subang
24th August 2013

Salam Aidil Fitri

http://db.tt/JjdZ7XcZ