Charles Hector
User
Junior Forumer
| Posts: 148 |   |
|
One day after IGP meet - another lawyer arrested - 2006/06/09 14:00
It was really shocking that slightly more than 24 hours after the Bar met the IGP to protest the harrassment, arrest and detention of lawyers. One of the cases was the case of Balasubramaniam who was arrested and detained by the PJ police when he was there at the police station carrying out his duties as a lawyer for his clients.
Yesterday(8/6/2006), another lawyer representing his clients who step forward to ask the "hindu temple demolishers" for the court order to enable them to continue with the demolition was arrested and detained by the police. Uthayakumar was released later that day at night on police bail.
The DBKL officers and the police DID NOT have a court order to proceed with the demolition of the temple. They were allegedly using powers confered by an Act that allows them to demolish "illegal" structures. Was the temple an "illegal" structure? I believe that if a temple (or a place of worship) or a house has been allowed to exist for many many years then DBKL should not come and demolish it unless they had first obtained a court order. If it is a newly build "illegal structure", it may be justifiable for the DBKL to use the powers provided by that Act - and by new, I mean a few months old. If they did not demolish it then - they MUST go to court to get an order for demolition. This "self-help" provisions in laws that allow the local authority enforcement personnel to break and destroy homes, places of worship and places of work must stop. I believe that it could be shown that the government had recognized such structures as legal by the things done (or not done) in the past. This is for the courts to determine.
A place of worship is a "sensitive" issue especially in a multi-religious society like ours, and this kind of demolition of places of worship must stop and stop now. Why is it happening NOW - previously these kind of sensitive issues were handed with great care. Negotiations and alternatives are worked out first before such acts of demolition of temples, churches and/or suraus/mosques happen. Look at mid-valley megamall and the solution reached with regard to that temple was the building of a new and improved temple in that megamall complex.
When we consider what happened, consider your reaction if you a Muslim discovered that your mosque/surau was destroyed. If you are a Chrsitian, likewise if your church or chapel was destroyed. It hurts and it makes you very angry - more so when the images and statues of your religious deities (gods) are being destroyed right there in front of your eyes. The destruction of religious places of worship is a "very very sensitive" matter and it must be handled with great care and compassion even if it really could not be avoided. Would you just stand by and witness the demolition? What would you do? - put yourselves in the shoes of those affected and try to understand their feelings and their plight.
Again in Thursday's demolition, we find police went overboard when one person was allegedly assaulted by a policeman using a hand-cuff causing him injury (the picture of that victim is attached).
I have to say that Malaysians are very patient and have not reacted to police excessiveness - but I fear that one day, the victimized "peaceful protester" or persons who see their temple and deities being destroyed would just be overcome by emotions and lash back. If you push and puh, beat and inflict violence even a lamb of a person will errupt - and the blame can and only will lie on the police and other enforcement personnel, especially the few who were unreasonable and their "bosses' who seem to have not taken any action against such officers.
What do we do - march again in protest to the IGP? Send in another protest memo? Pass yet another resolution at the Bar AGM? What...what..I wonder.
In solidarity,
Charles Hector
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Jaspita Bin Salleh
Visitor
|
I See No Evil, I hear No Evil and I Speak No Evil - 2006/06/09 17:57
Dear Mr.Hector,
Firstly, my deepest symphaty towards the predicament of those people you spoke of and to our brethren lawyer.
In respect of your posting to which I am now replying; I differ from your opinion as stated in your posting.
The label 'hindu temple demolishers' used by you is excessive and is wrong. In upholding law and justice, we must remember one thing; we should be careful with our words. That label give wrong impression as if in Malaysia; the authority has nothing to do but HAPPILY DEMOLISH HINDU TEMPLES AT THEIR WHIMP AND FANCY and it is not so.
I do have one question; On whose land the temple was built ? Even if at the time the temple was built, there is no ownership claim of the land in question but what is the legal status after the temple was built ? This a vital legal issue that should be focused on seriously. The DBKL alleged that the temple was an illegal building, the real legal status of the temple should be made clear and instead the DBKL should produce a court order why not a court order halting the DBKL is produced ? I am sure the incident will not happen and the temple could be saved.
We as lawyers should fight for justice in the way we know best, the COURT.
Now, the role that was played by the policemen in that fateful day; must they be blamed ? Are they responsible for ordering the temple to be demolished?
Are they the developer who has made promise to the caretakers of the temple? Are they have the power to order the demolition of the temple? They were there simply in carrying their duties.
In respect of the injury that was suffered by one of the protester; we have an allegation by an eye-witness that the injury was inflicted by the police and the police categorically denied it. Do the Malaysian policemen really enjoy and intentionally inflict injuries on civillians? I think not.
Next, in considering my own reaction in the event a mosque or surau is to be demolished; I have this to say; I will be sad but not angry as my faith in my God is in my heart and not in mosque or surau. I can built another mosque and surau. If it is demolished again and again , I will built another and another.In Islam, the whole earth is our mosque even if there is no actual building is built on it.
I would like to emphasize here that if the act was done in mala fide then it is wrong in law, in justice and in morality but if it is not the answer is clear.
Let us not simply blame, let us not simply follow our anger as Mahatma Gandhi once told that the heart of men is soft eventhough at the outside it seem hard. One day all evils will stop.
So what to do? We do what we know best and that is fighting for justice in the court of law instead of fighting it with the police force and other authorities outside the court of law.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Jaspita Bin Salleh
User
Fresh Forumer
| Posts: 37 | |
|
Re: Handy Dandy .. Which is the victim? - 2006/06/09 18:20
Shanmuga Kanesalingam wrote:
Kesian "mangsa-mangsa keadaan" (iaitu anggota FRU): At least 4 combat trained, body armoured FRU personnel with thick clubs have to kick a man armed with nothing but a book while he is down! (Gambar bagaimana mangsa sedang menderita itu dapat dilihat di http://www.jeffooi.com/2006/05/minimal_force.php Setelah melihat gambar, siapa mangsa sebenar mungkin lebih jelas.)
Gambar-gambar itu hanya menceritakan apa yang hendak diceritakan tetapi bukan cerita sebenar APAKAH BENAR-BENAR BERLAKU DAN MENGAPA POLIS BERTINDAK BEGITU Shanmuga.
Jaspita, anda memetik Hamlet di dalam tajuk anda. Mungkin soalan King Lear juga perlu diingati di dalam debat ini:- “A man may see how this world goes with no eyes. Look with thine ears: see how yond justice rails upon yond simple thief. Hark, in thine ear: change places; and, handy-dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief?” (King Lear, Act IV, Sc. VI)
Jangan lupa juga pada kata Shylock yang tertegun apabila hanya diminta mengambil satu paun daging tanpa darah.[Merchant of Venice]
Kepada jawapan-jawapan anda; saya membalas jawapan anda spt berikut:
Jawapan saya: Ya. 7 orang polis tidak boleh memukul bertubi-tubi seorang rakyat jelata yang tidak bersenjata. Undang-undang negara ini membenarkan rakyat memberi kritikan terhadap anggota kerajaan.
Memberi kritikan boleh tapi biar kritikan membina. Adakah anda tahu sebab sebenar 7 anggota polis berbuat demikian? Pernahkah anda memandang lebih jauh dari apa yang dipaparkan oleh gambar-gambar tersebut?
Jawapan saya: Mereka berkumpul tanpa permit jadi mereka mengingkari undang-undang yang menghendaki permit polis diperolehi. Tetapi, undang-undang yang menghendaki permit polis itu telah dikritik oleh SUHAKAM, oleh Suruhanjaya Diraja mengenai Polis, oleh Majlis Peguam dan hampir kesemua NGO yang bekerja keras untuk memajukan hak-hak asasi kami semua. Di Amerika Syarikat dalam tahun 60an, rakyat Amerika berbangsa Afrika telah dengan sengaja mengingkari pelbagai undang-undang berunsur diskriminasi. Misalannya, Rosa Parks telah mengingkari undang-undang yang berkata orang kulit hitam tidak boleh duduk di kerusi orang putih di dalam bas ketika beliau enggan berpindah kerusi di dalam bas yang dinaikinya! Tindakan beliau nampaknya mengingkari undang-undang tetapi undang-undang itu telah diisytiharkan tidak mengikut perlembagaan oleh Mahkamah Agung Amerika Syarikat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks)
Jadi adakah kita orang Amerika atau orang Malaysia ? Tidak perlu berbuat demikian yang hanya mengundang malang kemudian menyalahkan kemalangan tersebut pada orang lain. Salahkan diri sendiri dulu.
Jawapan saya: Adakah ia patut? Mengikut undang-undang, tentunya ya. Lagipun, raptai ini diadakan di hadapan ibu pejabat gemilang syarikat petroleum negara (yang dimiliki sepenuhnya kerajaan) dan adalah protes mengenai kenaikan harga petrol - jadi tempat yang tepat-tepat bersesuaian dengan isu. Dan, semua orang bertindak dengan aman sehinggalah FRU ("mangsa keadaan" tersebut yang sebenarnya nampaknya pencipta keadaan) mula membuat kacau
Tanpa ada raptai umum maka tiadalah pengacau itu. Lagipun tiada undang-undang membenarkan raptai umum tanpa permit.
Pada tahun itu, orang Melayu beraptai umum kemudian selepas itu orang Melayu tiada berapat umum melainkan berpilihanraya umum.
Jadi anda kena belajar sabar dan menyalurkan bantahan anda melalui cara terhormat dan tanpa mengacau ganggu keamanan awam.
Bukan FRU patut dihukum tetapi MEREKA YANG SENGAJA MENGADAKAN RAPTAI UMUM DAN MEMBAHAYAKAN KESELAMATAN DIRI MEREKA YANG TERLIBAT DALAM RAPTAI UMUM ITU PATUT DI HUKUM.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Stephen Tan Ban Cheng
User
Gold Forumer
| Posts: 572 | |
|
Re:I See No Evil, I hear No Evil and I Speak No Evil - 2006/06/09 21:45
Jaspita
To demolish a building, any building without even the slightest hint of it being a religious one, the law requires a VALID Court Order.
After getting the Court Order, then the lawyers and Court staff concerned can execute it in accordance with the law, with the police in tow.
No violence need erupt. If the execution of the Court Order is prevented, those who prevent its execution can be cited for contempt. Depending on their preventive role, it may even escalate into criminal contempt.
I do not see why violence must erupt if a proper and valid Court Order had been obtained.
To expect the lawful owner or owners of the targetted building to get a Court Order to state that it is a legal building is to impose the burden of proof on the owners.
No, the burden of proving that it is an illegal building must be done by those who want to demolish the building. It must be done in a Court of record.
Those are basic rules of law. There is no need for the police in any country to get violent UNLESS of course those who are against the demolition get violent first. In that event, and only in that event, the rule of PROPORTIONATE FORCE prevails.
I stand corrected by those with superior knowledge.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Jaspita Bin Salleh
User
Fresh Forumer
| Posts: 37 | |
|
Re:I See No Evil, I hear No Evil and I Speak No Evil - 2006/06/10 02:29
Dear Stephen. I have high regards towards you because of age and your wisdom. Be it known that I am all against that is not TRUTH. I am not saying that what you say is not true; your view is fair and true and so do others.
The facts that are presented before us in respect of the demolition of the place of worship is scathy and scarce and our Mr. Charles has not presented it adequately for us to analyze the truth. We only know from is wrote by our Mr. Charles. Beyond that either of us has full knowledge of it.
In the face of insufficient knowledge of facts; one cannot ignore but has to resort to assumption. I have made a liberal approach in making assumption at the best of my knowledge.
Here, the DBKL says that it do not need a court order to demolish that building in question as it has powers under an act to do so. Having in mind the 'efficiency' of local PBTs; it is prudent to challenge the DBKL decision by quashing the DBKL decision on grounds of ultra-vires. We should not take for granted that the DBKL is in the same view like ours.
Stephen, I would like to put your attention to a few lines in Bhagavadgita whereby in the midst of the great battle of Bharata; Arjuna was advised by Kreshna as Arjuna has refused to go to war as he thought that it was fruitless to do so. So Kreshna advised Arjuna on knowledge and sacrifice , may you benefit from it;
" The sacrifice of knowledge, O terror of (your) foes! is superior to the sacrifice of wealth, for action, O son of Prithâ! is wholly and entirely comprehended in knowledge. That you should learn by salutation, question, and service. The men of knowledge who perceive the truth will teach knowledge to you. Having learnt that, O son of Pându! you will not again fall thus into delusion; and by means of it, you will see all beings, without exception, first in yourself, and then in me. Even if you are the most sinful of all sinful men, you will cross over all trespasses by means of the boat of knowledge alone. "
As a fire well kindled, O Arguna! reduces fuel to ashes, so the fire of knowledge reduces all actions to ashes. For there is in this world no means of sanctification like knowledge, and that one perfected by devotion finds within one's self in time. He who has faith, whose senses are restrained, and who is assiduous, obtains knowledge. Obtaining knowledge, he acquires, without delay, the highest tranquillity. He who is ignorant and devoid of faith, and whose self is full of misgivings, is ruined. Not this world, not the next, nor happiness, is for him whose self is full of misgivings. Actions, O Dhanañgaya! do not fetter one who is self-possessed, who has renounced action by devotion, and who has destroyed misgivings by knowledge. Therefore, O descendant of Bharata! destroy, with the sword of knowledge, these misgivings of yours which fill your mind, and which are produced from ignorance. Engage in devotion. Arise!
Those advices were followed by Mahatma Gandhi and India was a nation again.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Invitation to the Launching of the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur) Website 
