Sosma detainee Hilmi files habeas corpus

Muhammad Hilmi Hasim, who was arrested under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) earlier this month, has filed for habeas corpus protection through his adoptive mother over his “unlawful arrest”.

In the habeas corpus application and affidavit filed today in the Kuala Lumpur High Court, Rahamah Abdul Majid, 58, claimed that Sosma is an unconstitutional law.

To continue reading, please visit the source link below.

Source: Malaysiakini.com

Sosma detainee files habeas corpus application

KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 18): Lawyers for terror suspect Mohd Hilmi Hasim, who is detained under the new Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), have filed a habeas corpus application to secure his release, arguing that the use of Sosma against him violated the Federal Constitution.
“His detention is mala fide as there is no ground to believe that he was involved in security offences,” lawyer Fadiah Nadwa Fikri told reporters at the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex after filing the application.
She said the police have until today refused to explicitly state the reasons for Hilmi’s arrest. According to her, Sosma was not consistent with Article 149 of the Federal Constitution, which concerns special laws against subversion and acts prejudicial to public order.
Fadiah also disclosed that police allegedly told Hilmi’s adopted mother, Rahamah Abdul Majid, that Hilmi would get special protection if he agreed to testify against Yazid Sufaat.
“Therefore it is clear that Mohd Hilmi is detained to get further information against the other two and not because he has committed an offence, and hence he should be released immediately,” she said.
In her affidavit filed today in support the habeas corpus application, Rahamah said that after two failed attempts to meet her son last week, she was told by the police to persuade Hilmi to testify against Yazid as the police had information regarding Yazid’s alleged “acts of terrorism in southern Philippines”.
“He will be given protection under the Witness Protection Act where his identity will not be revealed. He will also be given a new identity, a new job and new living arrangements. The family will also be given these benefits,” she said in her affidavit.
Hilmi, however, did not respond to the police offer, she added.
Rahamah was also asked to give an interview with the police before finally meeting Hilmi on Feb 15. Lawyers say this interview is completely unnecessary and is a form of intimidation against the detainee’s family members.
Another act of intimidation, they claimed is the alleged advice by police to Rahamah not to use the  services of the human rights group Suaram. Fadiah is associated with Suaram.
Hilmi, 33, and former Internal Security Act detainee Yazid, 49, were picked up from their work place at a Kuala Lumpur Court Complex cafe on Feb 7.
Another associate of theirs, Halimah Hussein, 52, was picked up later on the same day. All three were detained under Sosma.
On Feb 8, both Yazid and Halimah were charged at the Ampang Magistrate’s Court – under section 130G(a) of the Penal Code read together with Sosma – for allegedly promoting violence to intimidate the public in Syria. Their case will be mentioned again in court on Wednesday. Hilmi has yet to be charged. Under the new security law, he can be held up to 28 days without trial.

Source: FZ.COM

Jatuh, A Documentary

JATUH by Wong Siew Ki | 2012 | 36 mins | Bahasa Malaysia, English & Chinese subtitles/sarikata

What happens when your loved ones are called in for investigations by the authorities? Are they safe? Will you get the chance to see them again? On 15 July 2009, a man was brought to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) office as a witness for an on-going investigation. He never left that building again. His body was found the next day, after falling from the 14th floor.
JATUH, a documentary about the death of the late Teoh Beng Hock gives the account of the investigations and inquiries that took place after his death. The question remains, was justice served?

Apa terjadi apabila orang tersayang dipanggil untuk siasatan oleh pihak berkuasa? Adakah mereka selamat? Adakah anda dapat berjumpa lagi dengan mereka? Pada 15 Julai 2009, seorang lelaki telah dibawa ke pejabat Suruhanjaya Pencegah Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) sebagai saksi untuk siasatan. Pada keesokan harinya, mayat beliau telah ditemui mati selepas “dikatakan” jatuh dari tingkat 14.
JATUH, sebuah dokumentari kematian mendiang Teoh Beng Hock cuba mengupas siasatan dan inkuiri selepas kematian beliau. Persoalannya, adakah keadilan berpihak pada Teoh Beng Hock?

《坠落》是一部关于赵明福冤案的纪录片。经过五个月的策划与拍摄,此纪录片终于完成,并将在全国各地展开巡映。
这部纪录片以影像方式记录了赵明福冤案的整个过程,并访问了多位参与追求真相的人士,包括赵家、赵家律师、雪州大臣以及公民社会领袖等等。因此,欢迎对此事关注的大众广邀­­亲友出席公映,以作为对赵家的支持,以及对此事迟迟未获取真相与正义的不满。

Is this the end of SUARAM?

Is this the end of SUARAM? — Tommy Thomas

DEC 14 — I extend sympathy and best wishes from all right-thinking Malaysians to the brave individuals behind SUARAM for standing firm against the harassment, intimidation, threats and bullying by the mighty power of the mighty State.

So why has SUARAM been singled out since this July for this terrible treatment?

Because of SUARAM’s courageous pursuit of truth on the commissions and other monies paid out by defence contractors to certain Malaysians in the submarine deals.

The reason given by the politicians for investigating SUARAM is that it receives funding from foreign sources!

Let me state at the outset: To my knowledge, there is no law passed by our Parliament that prohibits any association or organisation from receiving monies from any source to fund its activities or use them for any other purpose.

But what is really shocking is for Malaysian politicians, whose principal source of income, is using other people’s money, to make this claim. It is the height of hypocrisy.

It is an iron law of history and politics, that all politicians in all countries throughout history are dependent on funding from various sources, including companies, trade unions, bankers and individuals. That is how politicians live, and when they are sufficiently seduced by other people’s money, compromises are made!

In the decade between 1998 and 2008, Wall Street spent US$5 billion in campaign contributions to both the political parties, and deployed 3,000 lobbyists across Capitol Hill to get its way. “Wall Street has a lot of money and Congress can be bought on the cheap.”

That was a major reason for Wall Street to be the most powerful economic, political and social force in the US, both before and after the 2007 crisis.

A few years ago, the US Supreme Court removed all limits on political contributions in order to promote “free speech and expression”. This has resulted in the growth of the “Super-Pacs” which have played and will play significant roles in the outcome of this November’s presidential elections between Obama and Romney. Billions of dollars are spent not just on the media, but literally “to buy votes”.

In England, Big Business supports the Tory party while trade unions substantially fund the Labour Party. Perhaps the worst incidents of corruption of politicians occur in India, which in the last decade has charged scores of sitting Members of Parliament for financial irregularities.

Malaysian politicians, particularly from Umno, are no better. The term “money politics” entered our vocabulary decades ago. When Joseph Pairin Kitingan’s government fell in the late 1990s, by massive defections shortly after it was duly elected at the Sabah state elections, party hopping (that happened) did not take place for reasons of fundamental principles!

Instead, it was money, pure and simple. Likewise, ideological reasons did not prompt three Pakatan assembly members to cross the floor in 2009 – which resulted in the fall of the state government which had enjoyed popular support in Perak.

Therefore political parties should be the last to complain about NGOs receiving funding!

How else are SUARAM and other like-minded organisations to fund their laudable activities? Their officers already sacrifice their time and energy for what they perceive as a noble cause — at the very minimum, they would be much more comfortable financially if they had “proper” private sector positions.

In order for these associations to carry out their tasks, they need substantial financial resources. In a recent public statement in support of SUARAM, Amnesty International reminded our government of Article 13 of the 1998 UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders which apparently provides that “organisations have the right to solicit, receive and utilise resources for the express purpose of promoting and protecting human rights”.

The “de facto” law minister, Nazri Aziz, immediately responded to say that it is “alright for NGOs to receive foreign funding, but they should not be used by outsiders as mercenaries to attack the government”. He went so far as to say that there are “good” NGOs like the Malaysian AIDS Council because that is “for a good cause”.

So Nazri Aziz and the Cabinet are the arbiters: if an NGO does not criticise the government, it exists for “a good cause”, but if it condemns the government, that is not acceptable.

Part II of our Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, contains numerous fundamental liberties or freedoms which cannot be removed by Parliament or by Courts.

Article 10(1) (c) guarantees “all citizens the right to form associations”. This right must be read with the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully.

Other critical rights are the liberty of the person under Article 5(1), the right to equal protection of the law under Article 8(1), the right not to be discriminated under Article 8(2) and freedom of religion under Article 11.

The most important constitutional case ever decided by the Courts of Malaysia concerns “freedom of association” under Article 10(1)(c). The Supreme Court decision in the Nordin Salleh case in 1992 recognised for the very first time the principle that in deciding on the validity of state action, the Court must look at its effect or consequence on the exercise of any fundamental liberty: if the result of state action was to render any fundamental liberty meaningless or illusory, the Court would strike down such state action.

In my opinion, the totality of the relentless state action against SUARAM over the past three months is unconstitutional under the Nordin Salleh test, and must cease immediately.

Although “freedom of association” is guaranteed under Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution, Parliament has passed numerous Acts which regulate and govern different types of associations, for instance:-

• companies;

• societies;

• trade unions;

• co-operative societies; and

• partnerships.

Each kind of association comes under the regulation of a civil servant, whether known as the ROC, ROS or Registrar of Trade Unions. Each is a bureaucrat, who takes directions and orders from Ministers, the Attorney General or other governmental official. All these departments are part of the government in the wider sense of the word — the establishment, if you will.

Perhaps the best illustration of the way in which the government controlled the decisions of a Registrar was in the wake of the Umno Team A v. Team B dispute in 1987.

After the High Court had ruled that Umno was illegal, Dr Mahathir Mohamad quickly applied to the ROS to form “Umno Baru”. His application was approved immediately. When former prime ministers Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn tried to form Umno 1946, the ROS refused to process their application.

Subsequently, all the assets of the original Umno were seamlessly transferred to “Umno Baru” and after a decent interval, even the word “Baru” was dropped. Throughout these episodes, the ROS behaved in a biased manner, always favouring the ruling party. Examples can be multiplied: you get the point!

The Companies Commission of Malaysia, the new name for the ROC, has not behaved any better in the SUARAM affair. There is absolutely no trace of independence and fairness in their conduct.

SUARAM should stand steadfast in their struggle. They should start a fund to which all Malaysians (and indeed foreigners) should be invited to contribute, say, one ringgit.

And most importantly, this is not the end of SUARAM: it is only the beginning of the struggle. There are many battles to conquer.

For Malaysians, if you needed another reason to punish the high-handed government which has ruled your nation for an unbroken continuous period of 55 years, the wholly unjustified intimidation of SUARAM provides you with one.

Please exercise your right to vote the “correct way” on ballot day, which will have to take place in the coming nine months! — aliran.com

* This article was first published by Aliran

Source: http://aliran.com/10974.html