|Item 7.1 of the
Motion proposed by Bar Council on setting up a Self–Insurance Fund (SIF) as an alternative to the present Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) Scheme, dated 7 February 2009
At the 62nd AGM of the Malaysian Bar on 15 March 2008, the floor approved the motion authorising the Bar Council to take all necessary steps towards determining the viability of a Self–Insurance Fund (SIF) as an alternative to the present Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) Scheme.
The Bar Council is proposing that the Malaysian Bar proceed to look at the SIF as an alternative to the present PII Scheme.
The key objectives of the Bar Council in moving to a SIF are to insulate the PII Scheme against insurance market volatility, exert greater control over the Scheme and its management, and over time provide stable and affordable premiums to members of the Malaysian Bar.
Section 78A(1), Legal Profession Act 1976 states that “the Bar Council may, with the approval of the Attorney General, make rules concerning the taking out of professional indemnity for advocates and solicitors against any class of professional liability and the rules may for the purpose of providing such indemnity do all or any of the following:
authorise the Bar Council to take out and maintain insurance in the name of the Malaysian Bar with any person permitted by law to carry on professional liability insurance business or pecuniary loss insurance business and covering every practising advocate and solicitor;
authorise the Bar Council to establish and maintain a fund or funds for the aforesaid purpose; or
require advocates and solicitors to take out and maintain insurance.”
A legal opinion was sought from a senior member of the Bar to determine that the Legal Profession Act 1976 provides for the setting up of a SIF. The said legal opinion confirmed that Section 78A(1)(b), Legal Profession Act 1976 empowers the Bar Council to make such rules to set up a fund, subject to the approval of the Attorney General.
Salient features of the proposed SIF are as follows:
The SIF will replace the current PII Scheme, but not in its entirety. A centrally retained fund will be created from members’ PII Contributions. The Bar Council would then proceed to purchase insurance for claims beyond a certain limit. This (optimal) limit would be determined based on the various studies conducted:
Actuarial analysis of historical PII Scheme claims.
Financial Modelling of the SIF, incorporating the actuarial claims analysis, investment income analysis and operating expense assumptions.
A key objective of the SIF is to reduce the long–term insurance cost of members. This is to be achieved by reducing the PII Scheme’s reliance on the commercial insurance market, which historically imposed higher premiums on the PII Scheme due to external factors (e.g. post 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina, etc.).
Under this Model/Structure, members’ contributions to the SIF will be primarily used to pay for actual PII claims. That is, the SIF will be rated based on the Malaysian Bar Scheme’s own merits and claims history.
The operating structure will consist of several Committees appointed by the Bar Council to oversee the management and administration of the SIF. Duties and responsibilities of these Committees are to be formally documented, e.g. a Charter, Article or Memorandum of Association.
The proposed Committees are to consist of members of the Bar and/or industry experts deemed appropriate by the Bar Council which include but are not limited to the following:
PI Committee. This Committee reports to the Bar Council, who will report to the Malaysian Bar at Annual General Meeting(s). The PI Committee will govern the overall running of the PII Scheme/SIF as provided under the Legal Profession Act 1976.
SIF Management Committee. Responsible for formulating strategic policies, advising the PI Committee on risk retention structure, and reviewing the SIF financial reports and audit findings.
SIF Claims Committee. Oversee the SIF Claims Management, Claims Administrator and determine claims against SIF in accordance to agreed terms and conditions.
These Committees will be supported by outsource third parties where necessary, e.g. an Insurance Consultant (combining the role of ‘Insurance Broker’ and ‘SIF Administrator’) and Third Party Claims Administrator. Further, these Committees, whilst independent from the Bar Council, are ultimately answerable to the Bar Council.
The process of obtaining the relevant approvals is in progress. This includes meetings held with Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) and the Attorney General’s Chambers (AG’s Chambers).
Two meetings have been held with BNM on 27 July 2007 and 24 April 2008. At these meetings, the proposed SIF Model/Structure was presented to and discussed with BNM, and there has not been any objections.
Amendments to the Legal Profession (Professional Liability) (Insurance) Rules 1992 to govern the administration and protection of a SIF were presented to the AG’s Chambers at a meeting held on 22 December 2008.
Once approved by the Attorney General, such rules would replace the Legal Profession (Professional Liability) (Insurance) Rules 1992.
The proposed amendments to the Legal Profession (Professional Liability) (Insurance) Rules 1992 are to ensure that the SIF is protected and used for the sole purpose of PII.
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT Bar Council shall proceed to implement a SIF, if it remains viable as an alternative to the current PII Scheme at 1 January 2010 or at a time and date it deems appropriate depending on economic and other related factors.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Item 7.2 of the Agenda
Usul dicadangkan oleh Majlis Peguam berkenaan hak–hak Orang
Asli, bertarikh 11 Februari 2009
Badan Peguam Malaysia,
mengambil perhatian bahawa Malaysia sebagai ahli kepada Majlis Hak–Hak Asasi Manusia Bangsa–Bangsa Bersatu wajib mempertahankan nilai–nilai yang mendasari undang–undang dan norma–norma hak–hak asasi manusia antarabangsa seperti yang termaktub, antara lainnya, dalam Perisytiharan Hak–Hak Asasi Manusia Sejagat 1948, Waad Antarabangsa Mengenai Hak–Hak Sivil dan Politik 1966 dan Waad Antarabangsa Mengenai Hak–Hak Ekonomi, Sosial dan Budaya 1966;
mengambil perhatian bahawa Malaysia telah meratifikasi Konvensyen Berkaitan Penghapusan Segala Bentuk Diskriminasi Terhadap Wanita 1979 dan Konvensyen Terhadap Hak–Hak Kanak–Kanak 1989, dan telah menandatangani Konvensyen Terhadap Hak–Hak Orang Kurang Upaya 2006 yang mana, antara lainnya, memberikan perlindungan kepada golongan yang mudah terjejas seperti wanita, kanak–kanak dan orang kurang upaya di Malaysia;
mengambil perhatian bahawa Malaysia telah mengundi, di Majlis Hak–Hak Asasi Manusia Bangsa–Bangsa Bersatu dan Perhimpunan Agung Bangsa–Bangsa Bersatu, untuk menerimapakai Pengisytiharan Bangsa–Bangsa Bersatu Mengenai Hak–Hak Orang Asal 2007 yang, antara lainnya, mengulangi hak–hak Orang Asli dalam menentukan nasib mereka sendiri;
didorong oleh keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors v Sagong Tasi & Ors  4 CLJ 169 yang mengiktiraf hak–hak Orang Asli dalam dan ke atas tanah adat mereka di bawah undang–undang lazim;
didorong oleh perkembangan terbaru pengenalan dan penubuhan “Badan Bertindak Mengenai Hak–Hak Tanah Orang Asli” oleh Kerajaan Negeri Perak (di bawah Pakatan Rakyat);
amat prihatin bahawa tanah adat Orang Asli menerima ancaman berterusan yang dilakukan atas nama “pembangunan” (mengikut tafsiran sendiri dan pemahaman satu hala oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri, tanpa perundingan atau persetujuan Orang Asli);
amat prihatin bahawa sungguhpun Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri mempunyai tanggungjawab fidusiari untuk mendukung dan melindungi kebajikan dan hak–hak Orang Asli namun sebaliknya Orang Asli sering dipaksa melepaskan tanah adat mereka kepada syarikat berkaitan Kerajaan atau swasta, atau atas alasan usahasama;
amat prihatin bahawa Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli telah gagal memenuhi tanggungjawab fidusiarinya untuk memperkasa dan membantu kebajikan Orang Asli, malah terlibat sama dalam perlanggaran hak–hak Orang Asli;
amat prihatin bahawa sesungguhnya implementasi polisi–polisi integrasi telah mengakibatkan penempatan semula Orang Asli secara paksa, memisahkan mereka daripada sumber mata pencarian untuk hidup mereka, cara hidup dari segi fizikal dan rohaniah mereka dan warisan ekonomi, sosial dan budaya mereka yang telah diamalkan dan dikembangkan sejak berabad–abad lamanya;
amat prihatin bahawa majoriti Orang Asli tidak dapat menikmati sepenuhnya hak–hak asasi mereka oleh kerana tradisi, adat dan nilai mereka sedang dihakiskan;
amat prihatin bahawa dalam usaha menjustifikasikan polisi “pembangunan” serta tindakan menempatkan semula dan mengintegrasikan Orang Asli, pihak berkuasa cuba menggambarkan Orang Asli sebagai menentang perubahan–perubahan yang dikatakan untuk kebaikan Orang Asli sendiri;
amat prihatin bahawa walaupun permintaan dan rayuan seringkali dibuat kepada pihak berkuasa, tanah adat Orang Asli masih belum diiktiraf dan dilindungi dengan sepenuhnya;
mengambil perhatian bahawa sesungguhnya tiada penyelesaian mudah atau satu penyelesaian sahaja kepada pengiktirafan dan perlindungan rasmi tanah adat Orang Asli kerana masalah–masalah yang dihadapi bergantung kepada tempat dan komuniti berkenaan;
mengambil perhatian bagaimanapun, terdapat pelbagai pilihan sedia ada bagi pengiktirafan dan perlindungan rasmi tanah adat Orang Asli bergantung kepada keperluan–keperluan masyarakat Orang Asli yang berkenaan, antara lainnya:
|(a)||pemberian hakmilik tanah secara individu kepada setiap keluarga Orang Asli;|
|(b)||pewartaan bahagian–bahagian tanah komunal oleh Kerajaan–Kerajaan Negeri yang berkenaan, di bawah Seksyen 62 Kanun Tanah Negara;|
|(c)||pewartaan bahagian–bahagian tanah komunal di bawah Akta Orang Asli 1954 dengan kebebasan yang tiada had masa serta tanpa sekatan ke atas hak–hak untuk mencari sumber makanan melebihi kawasan bahagian–bahagian tanah komunal yang telah diwartakan; dan|
|(d)||dalam kes–kes berkecuali iaitu yang berhubungkait dengan masyarakat Orang Asli yang hidup secara separa nomad, yang merupakan kumpulan Orang Asli yang paling mudah terjejas, peruntukan hak untuk mencari sumber makanan dengan bebas yang tiada had masa serta tanpa sekatan (selari dengan peluang yang lebih besar bagi pendidikan dan bimbingan vokasional ke arah melestarikan sara hidup mereka);|
amat prihatin bahawa kebanyakan komuniti Orang Asli tinggal
tanpa kemudahan asas, ameniti–ameniti dan infrastruktur
mengiktiraf bahawa Orang Asli adalah masyarakat yang sangat bernilai tetapi mudah terjejas, dan kehidupan, kebudayaan dan tanah adat mereka berhak mendapat perlindungan kita;
|1.||Dengan lantangnya menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri, Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli dan semua syarikat dan individu awam dan swasta supaya menghormati hak–hak Orang Asli sejajar dengan Pengisytiharan Bangsa–Bangsa Bersatu Mengenai Hak–Hak Orang Asal 2007, dan tidak bertindak bertentangan dengan hak–hak tersebut.|
|2.||Dengan lantangnya menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri dan Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli, melalui perundingan dan kerjasama dengan Orang Asli, supaya mengambil langkah–langkah yang sewajarnya, termasuk melalui aspek perundangan, dalam usaha mencapai maksud dan tujuan Pengisytiharan Bangsa–Bangsa Bersatu Mengenai Hak–Hak Orang Asal 2007.|
|3.||Dengan lantangnya menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri, Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli dan semua syarikat dan individu awam dan swasta menghentikan apa jua bentuk “pembangunan” (mengikut tafsiran sendiri dan pemahaman satu hala oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri, tanpa perundingan atau persetujuan Orang Asli), pembersihan hutan dan aktiviti–aktiviti pembalakan di atas tanah adat Orang Asli sehingga proses perundingan dengan masyarakat yang terjejas dijalankan, dan kebenaran bebas, yang natijah dan maklumat–maklumatnya dijelaskan terlebih dahulu, serta kerjasama diperolehi daripada masyarakat yang terbabit.|
|4.||Dengan lantangnya menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri dan Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli supaya mengiktiraf, melindungi dan menjamin secara rasmi hak–hak Orang Asli dalam dan ke atas tanah adat mereka di seluruh negara dan mewartakan tanah–tanah adat sebagai kawasan simpanan Orang Asli, dan jika perlu meminda undang–undang tanah negara ini bagi memastikan tujuan tersebut dapat dicapai. Dalam keadaan–keadaan yang menimbulkan keraguan, pemetaan yang dilakukan dengan rundingan dan kerjasama dari masyarakat Orang Asli hendaklah dilaksanakan.|
|5.||Dengan lantangnya menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan supaya mengadakan dan menjadi penganjur kepada sesi perundingan kebangsaan dengan masyarakat Orang Asli, badan–badan yang berkenaan dan pihak–pihak yang terbabit untuk membincangkan, mereka dan menerimapakai satu rangka kerja yang menyeluruh untuk dilaksanakan bagi menambahbaik kehidupan masyarakat Orang Asli termasuk memberikan setiap individu Orang Asli keseluruhan hak–hak yang dijamin di bawah undang–undang dan norma–norma hak–hak asasi manusia antarabangsa.|
|6.||Dengan lantangnya menyeru supaya sebuah “Badan Bertindak Peringkat Tertinggi Berkaitan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli” yang bebas ditubuhkan dengan dianggotai oleh wakil–wakil masyarakat Orang Asli, Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri, Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli, Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia, Peguam Negara, badan–badan bukan kerajaan, kumpulan–kumpulan hak–hak asasi manusia dan Majlis Peguam, antara lainnya, untuk mempertimbangkan pindaan–pindaan yang perlu ke atas Akta Orang Asli 1954 konsisten dengan undang–undang dan norma–norma hak–hak asasi manusia antarabangsa, dan untuk merumuskan polisi–polisi serta menyelaraskan inisiatif–inisiatif yang disasarkan untuk memperbaiki tahap perlindungan hak–hak masyarakat Orang Asli di negara ini.|
|7.||Memberi mandat kepada Majlis Peguam untuk mengambil dan meneruskan langkah–langkah yang sesuai dan perlu bagi mengimplementasi, membantu dan memperkasakan masyarakat Orang Asli dalam perjuangan mereka mengangkat martabat dan melindungi hak–hak mereka di bawah undang–undang dan norma–norma hak–hak asasi manusia antarabangsa.|
Motion proposed by Bar Council on indigenous peoples'
rights, dated 11 February 2009 (English translation)
The Malaysian Bar,
taking note that Malaysia is a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council and is obliged to uphold the underlying values of international human rights laws and norms set out in, inter alia, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966;
taking note that Malaysia has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, and signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 which, inter alia, accords protection for vulnerable groups such as women, children and the disabled in Malaysia;
taking note that Malaysia voted, at both the United Nations Human Rights Council and the United Nations General Assembly, in favour of adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 that, inter alia, reiterates the right of indigenous peoples to self–determination;
encouraged by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors v Sagong Tasi & Ors  4 CLJ 169, which recognises the right of indigenous peoples in and over their ancestral lands at common law;
encouraged by the recent introduction and establishment by the Perak State Government (under Pakatan Rakyat) of an “Orang Asli Land Rights Task Force”;
deeply concerned that the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples are under constant threat in the name of “development” (as unilaterally defined and understood by the Federal and State Governments without consultation with, nor consent of, indigenous peoples);
deeply concerned that notwithstanding the fiduciary duty of the Federal and State Governments to promote and protect the welfare and rights of indigenous peoples, the latter are instead often coerced into relinquishing their ancestral lands to Government–linked or private enterprises, or under the pretext of integration;
deeply concerned that the Department of Orang Asli Affairs has failed to perform its fiduciary duty to empower indigenous peoples and assist with their welfare, but is instead complicit in the violation of the rights of indigenous peoples;
deeply concerned that the implementation of integration policies causing coerced resettlement of indigenous peoples removes them from their source of livelihood, their physical and spiritual way of life and their economic, social and cultural heritage which have been practised, and have evolved, over centuries;
deeply concerned that the majority of indigenous peoples are not able to fully enjoy their fundamental human rights as their traditions, customs and values are being eroded;
deeply concerned that the relevant authorities, in an attempt to justify their “development” policies and actions to resettle and integrate indigenous peoples, seek to portray indigenous peoples as resistant towards changes that are purportedly for their benefit;
deeply concerned that despite numerous requests and appeals to the relevant authorities, the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples have yet to be fully recognised and protected;
taking note that there is no simple nor single solution to the formal recognition and protection of these ancestral lands, as the problems encountered vary according to place and community;
taking note however that various options are available for the formal recognition and protection of these ancestral lands depending on the needs of the respective indigenous communities, inter alia:
the issuance of individual land titles to every indigenous family;
the gazetting of communal land parcels by the State Governments under Section 62 of the National Land Code 1965;
the gazetting of communal land parcels under the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 with perpetual and unlimited foraging rights extending beyond the gazetted communal land parcels; and
in exceptional cases of certain semi–nomadic indigenous communities, who are the most vulnerable of indigenous peoples, perpetual and unlimited foraging rights (with concomitant and greater opportunities for education and vocational training towards sustaining their livelihood);
deeply concerned that many indigenous communities still
live without basic needs, amenities and infrastructure;
recognising that indigenous peoples are invaluable yet vulnerable communities whose livelihoods, cultures and lands are deserving of our protection;
Strongly calls upon the Federal and State Governments, the Department of Orang Asli Affairs and all public and private enterprises and individuals to respect the rights of indigenous peoples pursuant to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007, and not to act in any manner inconsistent with those rights.
Strongly calls upon the Federal and State Governments and the Department of Orang Asli Affairs, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, to take all appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to achieve the spirit and intent of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007.
Strongly calls upon the Federal and State Governments, the Department of Orang Asli Affairs and all public and private enterprises and individuals to discontinue any “development” (as unilaterally defined and understood by the Federal and State Governments without consultation with, nor consent of, indigenous peoples), deforestation and logging activities on indigenous peoples’ ancestral lands until a process of consultation is conducted with the affected communities, and their free, prior and informed consent and cooperation are obtained.
Strongly calls upon the Federal and State Governments, and the Department of Orang Asli Affairs, to formally recognise, protect and guarantee the right of indigenous in and over their ancestral lands throughout the country and to gazette such ancestral lands as reserved areas for them, and if necessary to amend our land laws to achieve the same. In cases of doubt, a mapping exercise in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples must be carried out.
Strongly calls upon the Federal Government to organise and host a nationwide consultation with indigenous peoples, relevant bodies and interested parties to discuss, design and adopt a holistic programme of action to better the lives of indigenous peoples, including according every indigenous person the full extent of all rights guaranteed under international human rights laws and norms.
Strongly calls for the establishment of an independent “High–Level Task Force on Orang Asli Affairs”, comprising representatives of indigenous communities, the Federal and State Governments, the Department of Orang Asli Affairs, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, the Attorney–General, non–governmental organisations, human rights groups and the Bar Council, to, inter alia, consider making amendments to the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 consistent with principles of international human rights laws and norms, and to formulate policies and co–ordinate initiatives to better protect the rights of indigenous peoples.
Mandates the Bar Council to take and continue all appropriate and necessary action to implement, assist and empower indigenous peoples in their struggle to promote and protect their rights under international human rights laws and norms.
Item 7.3 of the Agenda
Motion proposed by Bar Council on Detention without Trial laws, dated 11
The Malaysian Bar,
affirms that legislation which ousts the jurisdiction of the Courts to
review the detention of persons held without trial is a further violation of
international human rights law;
concerned that the said complaints have not been investigated properly and transparently, nor the perpetrators held accountable and prosecuted or disciplined for their actions;
concerned that the Government appears to sanction the use of unlawful and questionable methods in the interrogation and detention of detainees;
concerned with the immunity that the Government appears to accord to the perpetrators of torture or of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
encouraged by the recent landmark judgments of the High Court of Malaya in the cases of Abd Malek Hussin v Borhan Hj Daud & Ors  1 CLJ 264 delivered by Mr Justice Hishamudin Mohd Yunus and Raja Petra Bin Raja Kamarudin v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri delivered by Mr Justice Syed Ahmad Helmy Bin Syed Ahmad;
|1.||Strongly calls upon the Government to immediately and unconditionally release all persons presently detained without trial, and where appropriate, to prosecute them in a public and fair trial.|
|2.||Strongly calls upon the Government to immediately repeal the Internal Security Act 1960, Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 and Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985.|
|3.||Strongly denounces torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment inflicted on detainees during their interrogation and detention.|
|4.||Strongly calls upon the Government to advise the King to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct a full and open investigation into the complaints of torture or of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment inflicted on detainees by law enforcement personnel.|
The motion was unanimously carried.
Item 7.4 of the Agenda
Motion proposed by Bar Council on deaths in custody, dated 11 February
The Malaysian Bar,
recalling Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which states that:
Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
recalling Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights 1966, which states that:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
noting that based on the Royal Malaysia Police’s statistics from 2003 to 2007,
85 persons died in police custody, while 600 persons died in remand centres
for drug addicts;
noting that the victims of custodial deaths are from various ethnic groups;
distressed that on 20 January 2009, Kugan Ananthan, a 22–year old reportedly
detained for investigations into car thefts died in police custody;
noting that the nature of Kugan Ananthan’s death once again raises concerns regarding the treatment of detainees in the custody of law enforcement personnel and the interrogation methods used on detainees;
deeply concerned that custodial deaths continue to occur and erode public
confidence in and perception of the Royal Malaysia Police;
|1.||Strongly calls upon all law enforcement agencies and their personnel to respect, protect and promote the rights of detainees.|
|2.||Strongly calls upon the Government to immediately sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, and implement it as domestic legislation.|
|3.||Strongly calls upon the Royal Malaysia Police, the Attorney–General and the Judiciary to cause all custodial deaths to be investigated by inquiries conducted pursuant to Chapter XXXII of the Criminal Procedure Code, and ensuring that all inquiries are conducted expeditiously, transparently and in a meaningful manner.|
|4.||Strongly calls upon the Government to immediately advise the King to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the issue of custodial deaths including, but not limited to, Kugan Ananthan’s case.|
|5.||Strongly calls upon the Government to immediately establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission and implement all the recommendations of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police.|
The motion was unanimously carried.
Item No 7.5 of the Agenda
Motion proposed by M Manogar on Detention
of P Uthayakumar, M Manoharan, R Kengatharan and V Ganabatirau under the ISA
dated 13 February 2009
|(1)||Whereas Article 5 of the Federal Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.|
|(2)||And whereas Article 8 of the Federal Constitution guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.|
|(3)||And whereas Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution guarantees that except as expressly authorized by this Constitution there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race or descent or place of birth|
|(4)||And whereas Article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and association.|
|(5)||And whereas Article 11 of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.|
|(6)||And whereas Article 12 of the Federal Constitution provides that there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, descent or place of birth:–|
|(a)||in the administration of any educational institution, maintained by a public authority and in particular the admission of pupils or students or the payment of fees or; and|
|(b)||in providing out of the funds of a public authority financial aid for the maintenance or education of pupils or students in any educational, institution (whether or not maintained by a public authority and whether within or outside the Federation)|
|(7)||And whereas Article 153(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that it shall be the responsibility of the Yang Di Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interest of the other communities in accordance with the provision of this Article.|
|(8)||And whereas Article 153(2) provides that the Yang Di Pertuan Agong is to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and when any permit or license for the operation of any trade or business is required by Federal law|
|(9)||And whereas Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 empowers Advocates and Solicitor to represent their client’s interest without fear or favour.|
|(10)||And whereas Article 1 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights stipulates that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the most widely subscribed body of principles that establishes Universal Human Rights norms and standards.|
|(11)||And whereas the Declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and organs of society to promote and protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, adopted by consensus by the United Nations General Assembly on the 9th of December 1998 recognises the legitimacy of the activities of human rights defenders their rights to freedom of association and to carry out their activities without fear of reprisals.|
|(12)||In the Harare Commonwealth Declaration 1991, the Heads of Government of the countries of the Commonwealth had reaffirmed the pledge that were set out in a Declaration of Commonwealth Principles agreed to by their predecessors at their meeting in Singapore in 1971 among them being that, they believe in the liberty of the individual under the law in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, race, colour, creed or political belief and in the individual’s inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which he or she lives. They recognize racial prejudice and intolerance as a dangerous sickness and a threat to health development and racial discrimination as an unmitigated evil. They oppose all forms of racial oppression and they are committed to the principles of human dignity and equality.|
|(13)||And whereas the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states in it’s preamble that it developed out of recognition of the fact that “in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the ideals of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone especially the minority may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights as well as his civil and political rights”.|
|(14)||And whereas Articles 3, 10 and 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 provides for no detention without trial, right to personal liberty and a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.|
|(15)||And whereas the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, the term racial discrimination shall mean any on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing of human rights and fundamental and any other field or public life.|
|(16)||At the world conference on human rights held in Vienna, Austria in June 1993, Malaysia along with 170 other countries reiterated the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights and commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.|
|(17)||And whereas the preamble to
the Internal Security Act 1960 starts of by stating “An act to provide for
the Internal Security of Malaysia preventive detention, the prevention of
subversion, the suppression of organized violence against persons and
property in specified areas of Malaysia, and for matters incidental
“Whereas action has been taken and further action is threatened by a substantial body of persons both inside and outside Malaysia:–
||To cause and to cause a substantial number of citizens to fear organized violence against persons and properly; and|
||To procure the alteration otherwise than by lawful means the lawful Government of Malaysia by law established.|
|(18)||And whereas even the drafter of the ISA, the late Professor R.H. Hickling had said that the Internal Security Act (ISA) was only intended against communist insurgents and those bent on armed struggle. In an interview with the New Straits Times (on the 30th day of July 2006) Hickling said the ISA was being used against people for whom it was not intended “it was designed to be more limited in its scope than it is at the moment”. Organised violence is the key to this preamble but a lot of people who had nothing to do with organized violence at all were arrested (and detained under the ISA). “I would want Judicial review at all times”.|
|(19)||And whereas Advocates and Solicitors P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, R.Kengatharan and V.Ganabatirau had at all material times been discharging their duties pursuant to Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act and further to the aforesaid Malaysian Constitution, Laws of Malaysia Commonwealth, United Nations and International laws and obligations in particular in championing the minority, human rights and dignity of the Malaysian Indian community who are suffering from about the worst forms of violations of minority and human rights.|
|(20)||And whereas when P.Uthayakumar had filed a RM100 Million Civil Suit against the aforesaid parties, they had speedily and without even filing their statement of defence filed an application to strike out the Writ of Summons and Statement of claim now denying that they were referring the said terrorist link to P.Uthayakumar. They had further stated that they were merely referring to Hindraf leaders knowing fully well that P.Uthayakumar was the main Hindraf leader.|