Thursday, February 26, 2015

It will be wise for MIC to resolve its internal problems quickly and with dignity, and then move on to fight for the Indian community it claims to represent with true sincerity, courage and commitment.



Press Statement by M Kula Segaran, DAP National Vice Chairman and MP for Ipoh Barat in Ipoh on February 25th, 2015

It will be wise for MIC to resolve its internal problems quickly and with dignity, and then move on to fight for the Indian community it claims to represent with true sincerity, courage and commitment.


It was reported today that in response to MIC strategic director AK Ramalingam’s move to initiate a judicial review of Registrar of Societies’ actions and statements on feb 6 which declared the 2013 MIC elections null and void, an upset Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has told the MIC leadership that they can do what they want to resolve the party’s crisis, but should not blame the Barisan Nasional if it gets deeper into trouble.

Since Muhyiddin has said that Barisan Nasional will only advice, there is no reason for him to be upset and angry if his or BN’s advice is not accepted. Otherwise, that is not advice anymore.

Muhyiddin has to realize and accept the fact that the MIC leaders and members have the right to resolve their own problems the way they see fit.

I cannot and do not wish to interfere in MIC’s internal affairs , however , I will remind BN and MIC leaders that if MIC wishes to earn the respect of the Indian community,  it must be free to resolve its own crisis with dignity, that is , without any interference from Umno or BN.

When commenting on the judicial review by AK Ramalingam, Umno Vice President Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi also advised against such move and asked yesterday “How are you going to solve the problems in the Indian community if you cannot even take care of your own party problem.”

Zahid was right but he too must realize that how is MIC going to champion for the Indian community if it has to rescued by Umno which interferes with giving so called advice? 

Last month, MIC Vice President Datuk M Saravanan has said that Palanivel as President was the choice of the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib. So the truth was out and MIC has been having a puppet President who is the weakest among all its former Presidents.

I also wish to remind MIC that decades of BN government’s failed and unfair policies have resulted in the Indian community being marginalized.

It will be wise for MIC to resolve its internal problems quickly and with dignity, and then move on to fight for the Indian community it claims to represent with true sincerity, courage and commitment.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Police need to take stock and clean their own backyard



Press Statement by M. Kula Segaran DAP National Vice Chairman and MP for Ipoh Barat in Ipoh on 16th February 2015

 Police need to take stock and clean their own backyard

On the instructions of Madam Leong, we filed a civil case against
Mod Taufik Peter bin Abdullah as the First Defendant, against the Police and Government of Malaysia who were named as 2nd and 3 defendant respectively. 

The case was heard for about 10-11 days and today the Ipoh Sessions Court Judge Puan Sunita Kaur Jessy gave Judgement for the Plaintiffs. 

The Plaintiffs were represented by M. Kula Segaran and Selvam Nadarajah. The First defendant who is in jail was not represented while the police were represented by Miss H.S.Huam from the AG’s Chambers.

FACTS.  

On 16.09.2009 at about 5 pm, one Chen Fun Kee was found shot and killed at his workplace at Kedai MaxGold Enterprise at 105, Jalan Sultan Iskandar, Ipoh. The main business being to buy and sell gold, mortgage pawn receipts and Rolex watches. Further the establishment was also robbed.

1.     The case was brought by the deceased wife Leong Seok Cheng the First Plaintiff (1) and his only child Chen Ming Hui, the Second Plaintiff (2). In this case, the Plaintiff had adduced evidence through the witnesses to show that the First Defendant Mohd Taufik Peter Bin Abdullah the man primarily responsible for the shooting and killing of Chen Fun Kee.

2.    The First Defendant was at all material time an officer of the Police Department with the Police and a Government Servant to Second and Third Defendant. By reason of killing, the First and Second Plaintiff suffered loss of support and damages.

3.    Presently the First Defendant has been charged for murder under 302 Penal Court and the case is pending at Ipoh High Court.

4.    It is the Contention of the Plaintiffs that the CPO (Perak) namely the Second Defendant and the Government of Malaysia the Third Defendant failed to supervise, exercise control over First Defendant and thus, who while being in the employment as a police officer using a pistol belonging to the 2nd Defendant killed Chen Fun Kee.

5.    At all material times, a police officer is primarily governed and controlled by the Police Act. He is “deemed to be always on duty when required to act as such and shall perform the duties and exercise the powers granted to him under the Act or….. Thus clearly this section spells out that a police officer is on duty 24hrs a day. And thus at all material times by implication , what ever duties he discharges is duly performed as an officer of the police force. 
Further by section 85 of the Act a police officer may in the performance of his duties carry arms

6) The deceased was killed by a police officer using arms belonging to the Police force thus implicating the Police Force and they are answerable to the family of the deceased.

A young man of only 42 years was robbed of his life and thus the continuous care and support to this family has been permanently cut off. The Federal Constitution article 5 says on FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES- Liberty of the person Article 5. (1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. The Federal Constitution accords protection to all its citizens. But the innocent killing of this man has deprived his life. The police must accept responsibility.

Although the police had argued that the killing by the 1st Defendant was “a frolic of his own”, we had said by providing/according the 1st Defendant the usage of the fire arm the police had a supreme duty of care to society at large which includes the deceased. Are we going to allow the Police to wash their hands without any responsibility? They can arm a police man and he is authorized to be trigger happy?

It has to be remembered whatever compensation the family get may will not bring the deceased alive. Aggravated damages and exemplary damages must be provided to the family of the deceased. But the guilty and those responsible should be made accountable for their negligence and irresponsible acts in this case.

GROUNDS BY COURT

The court also said in her brief decision that “On the balance of probability the First defendant was on duty at the time of the incident and therefore the Second and Third Defendant is vicariously liable.”

The case has now been fixed for assessment of damages for the 13th March 2015.
This decision is a further victory for the innocent man killed by a policeman.

A message must also be sent out by this court that nobody is above the law and that includes the Police in their discharge of their duties.