RMAF arrests ex-airman who is charged for abetting the as yet to be charged "Criminal in Chief"?!

RMAF arrests ex-airman in engine theft case for deserting - The Malaysian Insider

RMAF arrests ex-airman in engine theft case for deserting

UPDATED @ 02:58:27 PM 25-11-2010

November 25, 2010

SHAH ALAM, Nov 25 — The Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) today surprisingly arrested former air force Sergeant N. Tharmendran, who is already facing charges of stealing two fighter jet engines on April 30, 2008.

His lawyer N. Surendran said RMAF arrested Tharmendran, 42, outside the Shah Alam High Court at 11.45am and accused him of deserting the force although his services were terminated last May 28.

Surendran claimed the arrest was to stop Tharmendran (picture) from revealing details of the theft, which he claimed trial. The High Court had earlier set December 17 for a decision on Tharmendran’s application to strike out the charge for the theft of two fighter jet engines.

“I told them that Tharmendran is a civilian and the air force had no right to arrest him. But according to Air Force Provos Marshall Lt-Col Mohd Razif Razak, Tharmendran had been classified as a deserter for missing work since September,” he said.

“This is clearly contempt of court. The arrest is unlawful as my client is a civilian who had left the force. I will hold the Defence Ministry and air force liable for this,” the human rights lawyer said.

He added that he will file a habeas corpus application this afternoon apart from seeking contempt of court proceeding against the RMAF.

Surendran said he was told by the Mohd Razif that his client would undergo a medical examination and would be detained at the RMAF Batu Cantonment centre.

Tharmendran is accused of abetting Senior Airman Mohamad Shukri Mohamad Yusop in the theft at the Material Processing Shed, Matra 1 warehouse, at the air force base in Sungai Besi in 2008. Mohamad Shukri has yet to be charged for any offence.

Surendran said his client was just outside the court compound when the airmen approached his client and arrested him in front of his father N. Nagarajah.

The RMAF later confirmed that it arrested Tharmendran as he has failed to turn up for duty after paying his bail on September 6.

The Mindef Corporate Communication Unit said Tharmendran was still in active service and his absence was an offence under the Armed Forces Act 1972.

Surendran, however, pointed out that Tharmendran’s contract of service was not renewed since its expiry on May 28 this year.

“His contract expired on May 28, 2010. No renewal (of contract) was signed by him,” Surendran told The Malaysian Insider.

“From June onwards, no salary was paid too,” he added.

Surendran also said he would seek contempt of court proceeding against Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, besides RMAF chief General Datuk Seri Rodzali Daud.

“I hold the chief of the air force responsible for this. I will cite him and the minister of defence for contempt of court,” said the human rights lawyer.

Surendran further accused Ahmad Zahid of trying to prevent Tharmendran from revealing the truth.

“There seems to be a serious attempt to prevent Tharmendran from revealing what he knows in court,” said Surendran.

“I do not believe that the air force would go to this extent of hounding and harassing him (Tharmendran). I suspect the minister of defence is behind this,” he added.

Earlier, Tharmendran had claimed that four RMAF officers had visited his parents’ house in Seremban on July 16 to abduct him.

He had also claimed that several air force men unconnected with his trial were seen waiting outside the courtroom at his July 19 hearing.

Surendran expressed his concerns for Tharmendran’s safety as he had been allegedly tortured by the air force.

“I’m very concerned about his safety at the hands of the air force because he’s been tortured by them once before,” he said.

Tharmendran previously claimed to have been tortured by two “majors” who sought to force a confession that he had stolen the jet engines.

He further alleged that about 30 to 40 others had been similarly tortured as he could hear their screams during his confinement at the air force base.

Tharmendran had said that he was made to wear a crash helmet and was hit with a cricket bat and a golf club three to four times a day.

He was also allegedly dragged, stripped down to his underwear, and thrown into a freezing cold room and made to admit, repeatedly, that he was guilty.

Today, Surendran said he would attempt to reach Tharmendran to obtain his signature for an affidavit in support of the habeas corpus application.

“I’m trying to see if I can get access to Tharmendran to get him to sign the affidavit, supporting the application for habeas corpus,” said the lawyer.

“We hope to file it by tomorrow,” he added.

Tharmendran and company director K. Rajandran Prasad were jointly charged in the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court on January 6 in connection with the theft of the missing F5-E jet engines.

Tharmendran is accused of stealing the engines in December 2007 at the Subang RMAF air base.

He was arrested on September 1 last year, and if convicted faces up to 10 years’ jail and a fine.

Rajandran is accused of disposing of the engines on April 30, 2008.

The theft was a major embarrassment to the government following reports later that the country’s first submarine — KD Tunku Abdul Rahman — could not dive in tropical waters.

The prime minister had vowed that there would be no cover-up in the high-profile case which occurred during his tenure as defence minister while the current minister, Ahmad Zahid, had claimed that it was an inside job.

Cops killed youths on purpose, says lawyer - The Malaysian Insider

Cops killed youths on purpose, says lawyer
- The Malaysian Insider

UPDATED @ 02:00:12 PM 20-11-2010

By Boo Su-Lyn

November 20, 2010

PETALING JAYA, Nov 20 — The families of two of the three youths shot dead on November 13 after being suspected of robbing a petrol station claimed that they were killed by police in cold blood.

Mohd Shamil Hafiz Shapiei, 15, Hairul Nizam Tuah, 20, and Mohd Hanafi Omar, 22, were shot dead by the police after a reported high-speed car chase in the early morning of November 13 in Glenmarie, Shah Alam.

“This was a gangland-style execution by police officers,” said lawyer N. Surendran (picture), who represented Shamil’s and Hairul’s families, at a press conference at the Petaling Jaya district police headquarters today.

“We have gathered enough evidence,” he added.

The lawyer said the latest shooting underscored the importance of a royal commission of inquiry, following the case of 14-year-old Aminulrasyid Amzah who was fatally shot by the police in Shah Alam on April 26.

“No child is safe on our streets. Any child out early in the morning is liable to be shot by the police,” said Surendran.

“We need a royal commission (of inquiry),” he added.

Selangor acting police chief Datuk A. Thaiveegan reportedly defended his officers’ actions by describing the three suspected robbers as “seasoned criminals” who were allegedly involved in at least three armed robberies in Selangor last week.

He claimed that the police shot the suspects in self-defence as they had allegedly rushed to attack the policemen with machetes after a car chase at about 4.10am on November 13.

Surendran, however, dismissed such claims as lies.

“This is a lie by the police,” said the human rights lawyer.

He pointed out that based on the families’ observations of the bodies, Shamil, Hairul and Hanafi each sported two gunshot wounds on their heads and chests.

“All three were shot in the head and chest with bullets exiting lower,” said Surendran.

“This shows the shots were fired at close range, which is inconsistent (with police claims) that the shots were fired in self-defence,” he added.

The lawyer also said the trajectory of the bullets on Hairul’s body indicated that Hairul’s shooter had shot him from a higher position.

“This indicates that the victims were kneeling. Hairul also had a black eye,” said Surendran.

“Shamil was shot directly in the centre of his forehead,” he added.

The lawyer said the families’ legal team would seek the opinion of forensic pathologists on the case.

“We’ll ask for an appointment with forensic pathologists from Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital in Klang,” said Surendran.

Norhafizah breaks down in tears at the police station.

He added that Shamil’s and Hairul’s families are demanding for the policemen responsible for the youths’ deaths to be suspended and charged with murder.

“The families want the policemen suspended and charged for the offence of murder. This was blue murder by the police,” said Surendran.

“They also want an apology for accusing them (the youth) of being criminals,” said the lawyer.

Both families filed police reports at the Petaling Jaya district police headquarters today, claiming that the two boys were murdered by the police.

“Tomorrow is Shamil’s birthday,” said his mother Norhafizah Mad Razali, before breaking down in tears.

In her police report, the 36-year-old businesswoman said her son did not have any criminal record and did not know how to drive a car.

“My son was a good boy who went for religious classes,” said Norhafizah.

Meanwhile, Subang MP R. Sivarasa called for an independent investigation into the deaths and for the police officers to be charged.

“We’ll ask the government to set up a royal commission of inquiry. I’ll bring this up in Parliament,” said Sivarasa.

“But the first step is to charge those murderers. How many more cases like this do we have to see?” he asked.

Besides Aminulrasyid, a second case involving the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Mohd Afham Arin in Johor Baru on October 20 last year has also surfaced after the victim’s mother recently demanded an independent commission to investigate the case.

According to human rights group Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram), 88 people died in police shootings last year.

The NGO also claimed that not even one police officer was held accountable and that the high number of deaths in 2009 was “alarming”, considering that there were only 13 such cases in the previous two years.

No hearing date for K. Selvach’s Habeas Corpus application

No hearing date for K. Selvach’s Habeas Corpus application

Sore need for plurality in law

Sore need for plurality in law

Brave New World
By AZMI SHAROM

Over the years, our courts as a whole have been steadily abdicating their duty to protect the citizens’ rights as stated in the Federal Constitution.

YOU may remember the Shamala case; the story of a Hindu man converting to Islam and then without the consent of his Hindu wife converting their two small children as well. The latest development in this saga is the Federal Court decision on the 12th of this month.

The roots of this case lie in the judgment of the High Court in 2004; the judge held that it was all right for one parent to convert their child without consent from the other.

His reasoning was based on Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution which states: “The religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian”.

He noted that the article says “parent”, not “parents”. This is an overly simplistic literal interpretation of the article, for if taken to its logical conclusion what it can lead to is a child being converted by one parent one day and then converted again by the other parent the next day.

Surely this ridiculous situation was not what the article intended and surely it can be implied that the word “parent” means both parents.

He then proceeded to give custody to the mother but on the condition that she will not expose the children to her Hindu faith. Again, this is another strange ruling. It places an unreasonable condition on the mother.

After this decision, the mother left the country with her two children.

Meanwhile, her lawyers appealed to the Court of Appeal asking the court to decide, among other things, on the constitutionality of one parent being able to unilaterally convert their children.

The Court of Appeal agreed to allow the case to go straight to Federal Court, the highest court in the land, to decide the matter on the grounds that it will save time and effort as whatever its decision, one of the parties will appeal to the Federal Court anyway.

The Federal Court decided not to make a judgment on the constitutional issues as the mother and the children were now out of the country and therefore whatever it decides will come to naught as she is not within its jurisdiction.

The Federal Court judges made clear their displeasure that this woman had left the country in contempt of the court and was now seeking a decision from the very same court; something they were not going to do.

With all due respect to the court, I am of the opinion that this entire situation is the result of our courts as a whole steadily over the years abdicating their duty to protect the citizens’ rights as stated in the Federal Constitution.

And now using a technicality, albeit a legally sound one, they are once again side-stepping an important constitutional question.

Time and time again, we have seen our courts hide from their responsibility to uphold the Cons­titution whenever cases involving Islam appear.

They either do it by stating that such matters belong in the jurisdiction of the Syariah court, even though the Syariah court has no jurisdiction to answer questions regarding the Constitution, or they come out with a ruling like the High Court decision in this particular case.

The courts have lost track of the fact that this is a secular country and that its citizens have rights as stated in our secular constitution. They have bent over backwards, for reasons unknown, to allow Islamic matters to be above and beyond the limits placed within the Cons­titution.

In this way, they have ignored the fact that this country, being a multi-religious and secular one, needs a high degree of plurality in order to avoid injustice.

> Dr Azmi Sharom is a law teacher. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

It must be the snake-oil that stinks .....

“An idealist believes the short run doesn't count.
A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter.
A realist believes that what is done or
left undone in the short run determines the long run.”
~Sydney J. Harris

“Our aim is to have a buffer of about maybe 20 MPs
to defend the government
in case Pakatan takes over the government,”
~Haris Ibrahim, Pakatan could face supporters in next GE

An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage,
concludes that it is also more nourishing.
~H. L. Mencken

==================================

Yah- I read that.
I also read that Tony Pua was right about what Haris proposes (athough it wasn't 50 seats, as Tony Pua said). Haris WANTS "only" 20 seats- So why don't the activists just nominate someone from the three parties to represent them?
Oh yes- I forgot. These guys Haris proposes, should not be subjected to any party discipline/agenda, nor would they be subjected to any ideological discipline. In short, they should subcribe to any party agenda/manipulation to get what they want.

In other words- Haris wants 20 seats for those who are on their own, possibly with no significant track record of political activism and have already made their money (has about RM0.5 Million to spare)!! This thing is said on the back of saying that "he's providing a pool of candidates to contest where they cannot find better candidates within the three parties?
That too, he wants them to contest "where PR cannot offer better candidates" so that, "We don’t want to see another Perak".

Look at how ridiculous his stand is. He wants to make sure another "perak" doesn't happen, by having candidates who will "defend the Government" but:--
1. He cannot guarantee that these guys will toe any line.
2. He cannot guarantee that they would not succumb to being bought over/ jump ship.
3. He cannot guarantee that they'll even stand up for the Peoples' declaration.

Very niiice ..... In short- what he wants (WITH NO GUARANTEES), is a "de-facto mosquito party" of "independents" supported by the PR to "act as a buffer" - which will abide by no discipline, to challenge an embryonic force that has thus far, (despite all its flaws), has successfully threatened the BN juggernaut and clipped their wings!

They say that politics is a game of "perceptions".
Haris's denial that "It has nothing to do with Zaid" when he was supporting Zaid all along. and RPK's recent comments in "support" of Zaid in his latest column on NHB, would cast a doubt on the minds of many voters- if not just outright confuse them.
Quite a perception- (that 3 parties don't even have 20 guys of calibre among their thousands)- to go into an election, hoping to win, huh?

It is not that I disagree with his opinion about having an alternative candidate pool, so that we have "credible forces in the parliament"......
Aaah, so it is about-"effective representation" in the Parliament, is it?
Hello friend- get real la brader .... Do you even realize that the Parliament is at best, a talk-shop?
IT IS INEFFECTIVE AND ALMOST POWERLESS in the face of the manipulations of the Federal Constitution and religion by UMNO!!!
This is- which come as a surprise to many- The parliament ineffective by design!! If you don't believe me- just ask Mahathir ....
That begs the question- what do you hope to achieve with these 20 "lawmakers", who have created the perception that the three PR parties do not even have this number of guys of calibre to represent them, should you fail to reach Putrajaya, or have a flimsy majority at best?

It is just that I believe that this optimism of a "3rd force" in parliament and assessment of the Malaysian voter mindset is bordering on naivete. You want lawmakers to be effective in parliament, you need to be able to control sentiments on the street. As long as we have apathy on the streets- the executive will overide the parliament!!
Public perception- that is the key... and that is where the "3rd force" thingie will have to do its job!! Anything else, and we will be saddled with the same problem all over again.

We have a system that borders on Fascism- with a "gagged media", impotent judiciary, an Attorney General who doesn't care if he looks ridiculous, indisciplined police-force, scandals galore in the Auditor-General's report, child abduction for the sake of conversion is legalized through the religious courts and where he cannot walk the streets with his friends without violating the "Police Act" (if he doesn't have a permit) - and here is Haris, trying to speak of a blooming democracy- with an effective parliament!!

The way I look at it- this "3rd-force" thingie should concentrate on creating awareness - enough to push politicians to respond to demands made in parliament and in the media. Until that happens, those who hope to bring about the perfect democracy in the perfect parliament, is nothing short of Delusional!

What we have here, is - either an anorexic model who is putting on clothes a little too big for her body or an obese one with pants too tight for his/her bulging waistline, baring abs that's hardly what you'd call a sixpack- and yet thinks that he/she is sexy, and tries walk tall without stumbling in front of the sniggering fashionistas - who control perceptions, minds and hearts.
In short, I think somebody is pushing his idealism a little too much, too far, too soon- and who knows- maybe even hoping that the whole thing would fizzle out, if nothing happens!!

But then again- if the PR parties are willing to provide seats for private citizens who wish to "defend the Government" - who am I to so anything about that ....
Indeed- as RPK says, "Who are the real Trojan Horses?".... but maybe he should've added the word "unwitting" to it.
Something just doesn't seem right......
It may not be Zaid or UMNO farting with glee here - but something sure doesn't sound too right here, and smells to the high heavens (in the so-called "3rd force" issue which the salesman is peddling .... ).

Yup- it must be some snake-oil somewhere .....

Fatal shooting of 3 persons including a 16-year-old boy in Glenmarie

Fatal shooting of 3 persons including a 16-year-old boy in Glenmarie

In almost all cases, police claim that the suspects fled and police gave chase. The suspects then attacked police and the police opened fire killing all instantly. No suspect in such situations ever seems to survive. Subsequent to the shooting police claim to have discovered weapons in their vehicle and accuse the dead of being involved in all sorts of crime. Of course, by then none of them can defend themselves.

By Lawyers for Liberty

Lawyers for Liberty is gravely concerned over the shooting to death of three alleged suspects by police during the early hours of Saturday 13th November 2010 at Glenmarie, Selangor.

The dead were Mohd Shamil Hafiz Shafie, 16, Mohd Khairul Nizam Tuah, 20, and Mohd Hanafi Omar, 22. Although one of the dead persons was a sixteen year old boy, acting Selangor police chief Datuk A.Thaiveegan has made the incredible claim that all the dead were "seasoned criminals". The police allege that the dead suspects were part of a gang known as "Geng Minyak" which preyed on petrol stations. They further allege that the suspects when cornered rushed at the police with machetes and that the police shot them all dead in self-defense.

We find this story by the police to be quite unbelievable. If the suspects were only armed with machetes and not firearms, why was it necessary to shoot all of them dead? Were any warning shots fired? It beggars belief that men armed with machetes would rush into a hail of bullets.

We note that there is disturbing similarity in the justification given out by police after almost every fatal police shooting in recent memory. In almost all cases, police claim that the suspects fled and police gave chase. The suspects then attacked police and the police opened fire killing all instantly. No suspect in such situations ever seems to survive. Subsequent to the shooting police claim to have discovered weapons in their vehicle and accuse the dead of being involved in all sorts of crime. Of course, by then none of them can defend themselves.

Even 14 year police shooting victim Aminulrasyid Amzah was accused of being a parang wielding criminal. This standard police version which is trotted out after every shooting is extremely improbable, to say the least. It should be noted that international policing norms require that firearms only be discharged to protect life and that clear warnings be given with adequate time to comply. Are these rules being observed and complied with by the Malaysian police force?

We seriously doubt it, going by previous cases. We also note that the authorities continue to refuse to make public even the police guidelines on discharge of firearms. Why all this secrecy?

We call for an immediate independent investigation into this latest shooting, with the findings made public. We reiterate the call for a Royal Commission to investigate all police shootings over the past decade. We call upon the police force to adhere to international guidelines on policing and to eschew all unlawful actions in the name of crime prevention.

LAWYERS FOR LIBERTY

N.Surendran
Fadiah Nadwa Fikri

Project Avalon | Klaus Dona

Project Avalon | Klaus Dona