Either Najib pass Rogue legislation Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015 (Pota) or brace for the fury of the Rosmah

Even Twitter Cop is scared of Mahathir

Given the debate — and instances of citizens being charged for posting opinions online 

  
 Najib criminalising the dissemination of information (through IT devices) deemed offensive, observed that terms such as ‘grossly offensive’ were vague – making it difficult for both law enforcement agencies and potential offenders to know the ingredients of the offence! Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak today continued to defend the use of the Sedition Act 1948, a law which he promised to abolish in 2012, only to change his mind last year.the internet has become a part of everyday life. To see this as a danger is wrong. On the contrary IT communication platforms empower citizens and shore up accountability in democracy. Besides the law already provides for reasonable restrictions on free speech and criminalises offences such as incitement to violence. Beautiful quotes (by) Shakespeare, Mark Antony’s speech in Julius Caesar to explain what incitement means. (It is a) Very thorough judgment., there is no need to worry as by reading down by making a court order mandatory, the court has injected much needed safeguards. Now, only after application of a judicial mind can content be taken down. This is great relief to those who were being constantly harassed by corrupt real estate developers, crooks running educational institutions who wanted all negative content about them taken down. The legal process will filter out the non-serious complainants.

 Police Manipulation
That this murder case has been subjected to serious political manipulation has been obvious from the very start, when the police commenced their highly questionable investigation, right through to the present trial when the conduct of lawyers for both sides appear increasingly dubious. Instead of the prosecutor seeking the truth and the defense lawyer fighting for the accused, both seem preoccupied with an overriding mission – to prevent the whole truth from emerging. Their combined efforts to cover up the issue of the immigration record and the identity of Najib Razak in the picture are just two examples of such conduct.
The highly irregular nature of this case was also marked by frequent and mysterious changes of legal personnel, resulting in a complete changeover of the defense team, the prosecutors and the judge even before the hearings began. These weird phenomena were crowned by the shock appearance of a new team of prosecutors who were appointed only hours before the hearing was supposed to begin, thus necessitating an impromptu postponement of the trial for two weeks. None of these changes of legal personnel has been properly explained, except for the resignation of Abdul Razak’s first lawyer; Zulkifli Noordin, quit, he said, because of “serious interference by third parties”

.
Under these circumstances, the public must brace itself for more aberrant scenarios from this court, while Najib and his supporters may have to keep their fingers crossed in the days ahead when many more witnesses have yet to walk through what must appear to Najib as a minefield.
On a more serious note, this unseemly trial does not exactly add credit to Malaysia’s system, whose already wretched image has just been further mauled by the shameful finale of another sham trial – that of Eric Chia of Perwaja Steel fame. After seven long years of investigations and three years of court hearings, that case was thrown out due to lack of prima facie evidence. With that, the long-drawn out Perwaja Steel saga ended without finding any culprit for the mountain of losses (more than RM 10 billion) suffered by taxpayers.
There has been a spate of criminal cases being dismissed of late due to inadequate investigations and poor prosecution, indicating that the downward slide of our criminal justice system, which began in the Mahathir era, has gotten worse under Abdullah Badawi’s leadership. With the criminal justice system in a shambles, the rule of law is in jeopardy. And that is an important benchmark to judge the efficacy of Abdullah’s administration vis-à-vis his reform agenda.

An unbelievable spectacle took place in the bizarre murder trial of Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaaribuu on June 29. Karpal Singh, the lawyer for the victim’s family, attempted to ask a question about a “government official” allegedly seen in a photograph with the victim. At that point, both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer sprang to their feet in unison to block the question.
This resulted in a shouting match, with Singh on one side, the victim’s cousin on the stand, and the combined forces of the prosecution and defense blocking the line of questioning.
Earlier, a similar division of forces occurred when a Mongolian witness – a girlfriend of the victim told the court that immigration entry computer records of the deceased and her two Mongolian companions, including the witness, had been mysteriously erased. When Singh asked the court to take proper note of this highly irregular event, both the prosecution and defense objected to the evidence as irrelevant, and insisted that it be expunged.
Now, isn’t that a strange phenomenon? A prosecutor is supposed to seek justice for the deceased victim’s family against the murderers, so how come the prosecutor is now ganging up with defense lawyers to oppose the victim’s family lawyer? Is this a case of prosecutor vs. defense or a case of prosecutor plus defense vs. victim’s family? Obviously, the prosecution and defense seem to have plenty of common interests. What are those common interests?
The answer may lie in the identity of that “government official” that allegedly appeared in the photograph with Altantuya that both prosecution and defense tried so hard not to allow into court.read this Rosmah,murdered Altantuya,

Altantuya, who suffered a gruesome death on Malaysian soil three years ago, was a former mistress to political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, who is a close associate of Najib. Karpal Singh, told reporters previously that Shaariibuu has indicated that he is willing to settle the matter out of court.

"The highest court has made a decision, so there is nothing more to say. And I am warning those who wish to comment further because it may be contempt (of court)," he said.

Khalid warned Malaysians against raising the issue of motive in the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

According to inspector-general of police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar’s definition of sedition, you have to be the first person to raise a contentious issue, only then you will be charged with sedition.
  Stop making excuses and do your job by getting to the root cause as to why the public mistrusts PDRM (Royal Malaysian Police).

You cast the evil spell on yourselves. You mean that two guys from your own PRDM have been convicted of murder without any proof of mens rea by either one of them and you keep quiet?

Do you know the meaning of mens rea? If not, ask Kinabatangan MP Bung Moktar Radin - he will give you graphic details of menses rea.

now everyone can start accusing Najib of criminal activity relating to Altantuya Shaariibuu and 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MBD) and not be arrested for sedition because many people have already talked about these issues.

Malaysian Bar has urged Putrajaya to withdraw the Rogue legislation Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015 (Pota)

Malaysia's Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime bill is another repressive law a "shameless revival of the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA)" and other laws that were repealed or revoked in 2011 and 2012 such as the Restricted Residence Act 1933, Banishment Act 1959 and Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969.  Najib has made little effort to provide explicit safeguards against its abuse.the Malaysian Bar "abhorred detention without trial", and viewed Pota as "a repressive law that is an affront to the rule of law and repugnant to the principles of natural justice."This bill’s key provisions would lead to a dramatic expansion of Rogue Police chief Tan Sri Khalid powers. In an astounding departure from due process under IPC, this bill makes confessions before police admissible as evidence in courts. It unjustifiably raises from 90 to 180 days the period of detention without charge, again with an astounding potential for abuse. This bill also makes evidence collected through interception of wire, electronic or oral communication admissible in court. It provides immunity to police from legal proceedings for anything done in ‘good faith’. These are sweeping powers but the bill contains no safeguards for privacy, transparency or human rights protection., this is an opportune moment for the Centre to push police reforms and greater police modernisation that stress on developing investigation and intelligence development skills, using state of the art technologies and enhancing training programmes in the larger goal of cracking down on organised crime and terror.NOT  the Rogue legislation Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015 (Pota)

tabled Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015 (Pota) and bring all other legislation into line with its commitment to respect the rule of law and principle of natural justice.

Malaysian Bar president Steven Thiru said the bill should be withdrawn because the anti-terrorism bill was another repressive law, which he described as a "shameless revival of the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA)" and other laws that were repealed or revoked in 2011 and 2012 such as the Restricted Residence Act 1933, Banishment Act 1959 and Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969.

The terrorist menace in this country has been grotesquely exaggerated as an excuse to bring in the abominable POTA and a slew of other legislations that will surely turn this country into a full-fletched totalitarian state.

There has been no violence committed by terrorists in recent memory; and only a few have been detained or charged under SOSMA in recent years, if the Suluk incursion is excluded. So, why introduce draconian laws that are not even seen in areas which are in the thick of the IS terrorism, where scores of lives are annihilated every
day?

Malaysians must draw a red line where those bent on perpetuating their rule by force cannot cross, and this is the moment for all to stand up and roar their disapproval, by words and deeds.

It is now or never.

He said the Malaysian Bar "abhorred detention without trial", and viewed Pota as "a repressive law that is an affront to the rule of law and repugnant to the principles of natural justice".

"Pota is purportedly directed at persons who are 'engaged in the commission or support of terrorist acts involving listed terrorist organisations in a foreign country or any part of a foreign country'.

"However, because words like 'engaged', 'commission', 'support' and 'involving' have not been defined in Pota, the reach of the legislation is extremely wide and lends itself to abuse.

"It opens up the possibility that almost anyone could be targeted under Pota. We have seen how ISA, which had been meant to deal with the communist insurgency, was used to stifle political dissent and imprison political opponents," Thiru said today.

He said the exclusion of “political belief and political activity" as a ground for detention under Pota was also false comfort.

He said in the past, politicians and political activists had been detained under ISA for activities that were nonetheless viewed as prejudicial to national security or public order.

The Malaysian Bar, he said, was concerned that organisations not registered as political parties under the Societies Act 1966, or not registered under the Societies Act 1966, could also be subjected to the wide powers of Pota.

Steven said they also have issues with Pota conferring "draconian powers” on the inquiry officer tasked with investigating allegations against the accused person and presenting the evidence to the Prevention of Terrorism Board (POTB).

He said the inquiry officer was not expressly defined in Pota, which also excluded the normal rules of evidence and criminal procedure, meaning that the officer might procure evidence by any means.

"There is no provision for POTB to inquire into the officer's report or require further investigation.

"The person accused is also not legally represented before POTB, which has extensive powers including granting a detention order of up to two years or a restricted residence order of up to five years."

Another issue was the "absence of security of tenure that undermines whatever independence POTB purported to have", Thiru said, because members of the board were appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, following convention, upon the advice of the government.

"Only the chairman is required to have legal experience, and there is no provision that he or she must be, or must be qualified to be a judge.

"We have seen from the practice of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca) that the names of the members of the Prevention of Crime Board have not been made public. It is likely to be no different for members of POTB.

"The fact that POTB hearings will not be held in public means, in effect, that Pota will allow secret hearings by a secret panel. There will be no transparency," he said, adding that there was no provision allowing a prospective detainee to be present at a POTB hearing, or for the detainee to be legally represented.

He also highlighted the part that no judicial review of the detention order would be possible under Pota, an aspect he described as "one of the most offensive" in the legislature.

"This violates our constitutional scheme, which invests judicial power in the Judiciary, and is further contrary to Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees equality and equal protection before the law.

"The small concession that courts can review procedural compliance is illusory in practice since POTB determines its own procedures."

Steven also said that the government was also proposing to introduce a Special Measures Against Terrorism in Foreign Countries Act 2015, and to amend Poca, the Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Prisons Act 1995, and the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma).

When taken as a whole, all these legislative measures, he said, made the introduction of Pota itself wholly unnecessary.

He said the amendments to the Penal Code would enlarge the nature and extent of offences within Part VI that deal with terrorism, and for which alleged offenders must be tried in open court; while Poca amendments that were also opposed by the Malaysian Bar extended its its scope to include terrorists.

"While we have serious concerns about some of these other amendments as well, the combination of these two sets of amendments, together with the new Sosma, adequately address the threat that is posed by terrorism, whether foreign or domestic.

"It is also noteworthy that the amendments to Sosma expand the scope of surveillance and information gathering, which also constitute a violation of the right to privacy. Pota is therefore clearly not required."

Steven also said by passing Pota, Malaysia would be violating the nation's international commitment to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178, which was passed unanimously in September 2014.

The resolution provides that any measure to counter terrorism by member states must comply with all obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, international refugee law, and international humanitarian law.

The resolution states that respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are complementary and mutually reinforcing with effective counter-terrorism measures, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort.

"It is unacceptable that Malaysia, as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has adopted a course of action that contravenes a resolution of that very same body.

"The Malaysian Bar remains steadfastly opposed to detention without trial. As such, we view the Pota as a backward step," he said, reiterating that the government should withdraw the bill.

an indelible stain on Malaysia's political and legal systems

  

But the case leaves an indelible stain on Malaysia's political and legal systems

P. Balasubramaniam, a private detective hired by Razak Baginda to keep the woman away from him, swore in an intensively detailed statutory declaration that he was told by Razak Baginda that Altantuya had been the lover of Najib as well, that she liked anal sex, and that she had been passed on to the analyst because Najib intended to become prime minister and didn't want a sex scandal hanging over his head.

The Asia Sentinel

Two Malaysian police bodyguards have been sentenced to death for the October 2006 murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu, in a case that raised as many questions as were ever answered, including who, according to the testimony of one of the two, offered RM50,000 to RM100,000 to kill her.

The trial of Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar has been intricately connected to the fortunes of Najib Tun Razak, who was installed as Malaysia's prime minister last Friday. Azilah and Sirul served as bodyguards in an elite police unit supervised by Najib, then the country's deputy prime minister. Also on trial with the two, but acquitted without having to put on a defense, was Altantuya's jilted lover and one of Najib's best friends, political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda. Razak Baginda almost immediately left Malaysia for Oxford, where he is seeking a doctorate degree.

According to the Associated Press, the two men listened impassively as High Court Judge Zaki Yasin ruled that he found their defense "unbelievable" as "each of them are blaming the other." He said he was convicting "both of you as charged" with murdering 28-year-old Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu sometime between Oct. 19 and Oct. 20, 2006. "They failed to raise any reasonable doubt" of the prosecution's case, Zaki said. Lawyers said the two would appeal the verdict.

From the start of the trial, during which prosecutors and the judge were hurriedly switched without warning, to the end, when the verdict was delayed since last February until after the United Malays National Organisation convention that named Najib party leader and thus prime minister, the case has appeared more about suppressing evidence and protecting Najib than determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

By several accounts, the 28-year-old woman, who was executed with two bullets to the head in a jungle clearing near the suburban city of Shah Alam and whose body was blown up with military explosives, was at the very center of a massive scandal scandal over the purchase by Malaysia of three French submarines. Altantuya, then Razak Baginda's lover, reportedly was the translator in the purchase, which cost Malaysian taxpayers €1 billion (US$1.32 billion in current dollars), netted a company controlled by Razak Baginda €114 million (US$151 million) in "commissions," according to testimony in Malaysia's parliament.

By Razak Baginda's own cautioned statement to the police, he grew tired of Altantuya and broke up with her after a year-long affair in which he gifted her thousands of dollars. However, she flew to Malaysia to demand as much as US$500,000, according to other reports, for her part in the purchase of the submarines. As she stood in front of Razak Baginda's house, demanding that he come out, the two policemen, accompanied by a policewoman, swooped down on her, tossed her into the back of a car, and she was never seen again.

In a cautioned statement that was never introduced in court, Sirul testified that he and Azilah had attached explosives to the woman's legs up to her abdomen and her head, raising questions why they had sought to destroy her abdomen rather, for instance, than her hands, which could identify the body. In his statement, he said that as she begged for her life, she said she was pregnant. Presumably the explosives would have destroyed any DNA samples of whose baby was inside her, if any.

P. Balasubramaniam, a private detective hired by Razak Baginda to keep the woman away from him, swore in an intensively detailed statutory declaration that he was told by Razak Baginda that Altantuya had been the lover of Najib as well, that she liked anal sex, and that she had been passed on to the analyst because Najib intended to become prime minister and didn't want a sex scandal hanging over his head. In the declaration, Balasubramaniam said he had seen text messages from Najib after Altantuya disappeared, telling him to "be cool" and that he would take care of the matter.

After delivering his statutory declaration, which can be found here, Balasubramaniam was summoned to a Kuala Lumpur police station, where he was forced into a total recantation of the document. He and his entire family disappeared. There apparently was never an attempt made by the court trying the three men to find him and ask him to testify as to the accuracy of the statement.

Myriads of other questions remain over the trial. In Sirul's cautioned statement,which can be found here, the police constable said Azhar told him Najib's chief of staff, Musa Safri, had ordered them to pick up the young woman. Azhar first suggested going to the Hotel Malaya, where she and two friends were staying, to kill them all, but decided not to because of the presence of closed-circuit cameras. Neither of the two was ever asked in court about Musa's involvement in the matter, nor about their relationship to Najib.

Burmaa Oyunchimeg, Altantuya's cousin who accompanied her to Kuala Lumpur and one of the two women whom Sirul and Azhar presumably intended to kill in the hotel, testified in the trial that she had seen a picture of Najib together with Razak Baginda and Altantuya. Both the prosecution and the defense leapt to their feet and asked that her testimony be stricken and she was never asked about it again. She also testified that when she attempted to leave the country, there was no indication that she had ever arrived there, leading to questions of how her records had disappeared from the immigration department. No questions were ever asked about how that could have happened either.

When Razak Baginda was first brought into court in June of 2007, his wife, Mazlina, shouted, asking why he was being brought to trial when he had no ambition to become prime minister, which could have been construed as a reference to the allegation of Najib's relationship to Altantuya that was described b Balasubramaniam. Mazlina has never been asked to explain her statement.

Nor has Najib, along with Musa Safri, ever been asked to appear in court or been questioned about the case. With his elevation to prime minister, it appears unlikely that either ever will be, unless Sirul or Azilah were somehow to give a jailhouse interview about what really happened in a case in which Malaysia's legal and political systems have closed tightly around the establishment to protect it. There is no indication of what will be done with the two urns containing the attractive young woman's bones that were exhibited in court