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

PR Suit against EC

PRESS STATEMENT - 17 July 2013 

Pakatan Rakyat suit is against the 7 EC officials is constitional

The Deputy Chairman of the EC has responded to the suit by Pakatan Rakyat to say that the suit is unconstitutional citing Article 118 of the Federal Constitution.

I would advise him to review his views with his legal advisors. 

The Deputy Chairman is failing to appreciate that the suit filed against the 7 members of the EC is alleging that by willfully and knowingly causing the failure of the indelible ink, they acted fraudulently, breached the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and also committed the tort of misfeasance in public office.  If the Court after hearing the evidence agrees with the Plaintiffs, the main reliefs sought are declarations to such effect and also payment of general damages.  There is nothing unconstitutional about such a suit for such reliefs.  Actions against public bodies based on such causes of action are well established all over the world in similar common law jurisdictions.

In the event that the Court finds that the EC officials did act fraudulently, in breach of constitutional rights and committed misfeasance in public office, then Pakatan Rakyat is also seeking consequential reliefs that the election in all 222 parliamentary seats is declared void and that the same errant officials are removed from their positions so that a fresh election can be conducted by new and credible officials.

Again, I see nothing unconstitutional in seeking such consequential reliefs. 

There are decided cases in apex courts all over the Commonwealth which have intervened in cases of election misconduct  by election officials other than purely through election petitions. I will just cite one here - Union Bank of India v Association for Democratic Reform [2005] 5 SCC 294 where the Supreme Court of India in a constitutional challenge issued directions to the Election Commission.  The case was not filed as a election petition.  India has an identical provision to Article 118 of our Federal Constitution which provides that a challenge to an election can only be done via an election petition.

The Deputy Chairman of the EC seems unable to appreciate and understand the universal and fundamental principle in common law, best expressed in Latin “Ubi jus, ibi remedium” which means “Where there is a right, there is a remedy”  which has been accepted in the Courts of England, Canada, Australia and India (in other words, the mature, senior Commonwealth) to apply in constitutional litigation.  Thus, any constitutional right if violated, must have a remedy or redress, more so when the right involves the right to a free and fair election. Accordingly, Pakatan’s civil suit seeks constitutional remedies for breaches of rights guaranteed under the constitution.  One need not and in fact does not pursue them by way of an election petition in an election court.

Pakatan Rakyat is aware that the independence of the Malaysian courts is a matter of controversy particularly when high profile political cases are involved.  However Pakatan Rakyat calls upon the members of the judiciary to play their role as an independent institution and ensure that rights provided for under the Federal Constitution are upheld.

Sivarasa Rasiah
Member of Parliament for Subang
Member of Majlis Pimpinan Pusat and Political Bureau,  Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

Ada kaitan jelas kaitkan Najib dalam kes Altantuya

KUALA LUMPUR, 28 JUN: Ahli Parlimen Subang, Sivarasa Rasiah menyifatkan hujah Timbalan Peguam Cara Negara III, Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah bahawa tiada apa-apa yang boleh mengaitkan Datuk Seri Najib Razak dalam kes pembunuhan wanita warga Mongolia dangkal dan tidak masuk akal.

“Ada cukup bukti bahawa pada malam berkenaan, Razak Raginda yang kita ketahui sangat rapat dengan Najib Razak membuat panggilan dan menghantar SMS kepada pembantu peribadi Najib iaitu Musa Safri.

“Apakah sesuatu mahu disembunyikan bila saksi penting seperti Musa Safri tidak dipanggil ke mahkamah? Apa yang disembunyikan” kata Sivarasa kepada Keadilandaily.

Menurutnya terdapat bukti jelas para pegawai khas Najib terutamanya DSP Musa Safri tidak pernah dipanggil sebagai saksi kes pembunuhan Altantuya, namun terlibat secara langsung dalam kes berkenaan.

Turut terlibat katanya, seorang lagi pembantu Najib, Nasir Safar sebagai orang yang memandu kereta secara perlahan-lahan di depan rumah Razak Baginda pada malam kejadian Altantuya diculik.

Beliau merujuk kepada Perkara 30 dari teks Akuan Bersumpah penyiasat persendirian Balasubramaniam.

“Ada sesuatu yang mahu dilindungkan apabila dua saksi penting ini tidak dipanggil. Bukti jelas keterlibatan pegawai-pegawai Najib.

“Apakah kita boleh terima bahawa Najib sama sekali tidak terlibat dalam kes ini?, soalnya.

Sirul Azhar sebelum ini membuat pengakuan mengejutkan apabila memberitahu Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam bahawa dia adalah sekadar ‘kambing hitam yang harus dikorbankan’ untuk melindungi rancangan dan niat mereka yang tidak berada dalam mahkamah ini untuk menghadapi pertuduhan.

Short URL: http://www.keadilandaily.com/?p=53879



.