Thursday, July 27, 2017

                                                                                                                     SOALAN NO. 57





TARIKH            : 24 JULAI 2017


YB Tuan M. Kulasegaran [Ipoh Barat] minta PERDANA MENTERI


(a) memberikan perkembangan terkini, mengenai menghapuskan hukuman

mati dan moratorium bagi hukuman mati; dan

(b) berapakah jumlah banduan yang masih menunggu pelaksanaan

hukuman mati di penjara dan moratorium bagi hukuman mati.


                             MENTERI DI JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua,

Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat, Kerajaan melalui Jabatan Peguam

Negara telah menjalankan satu kajian bagi meneliti isu undang-undang dan

dasar hukuman mati dalam negara kita. Kajian tersebut telah dijalankan

melalui International Centre for Law and Legal Studies (I-CeLLS) oleh

Jabatan Peguam Negara dengan kerjasama pakar-pakar antarabangsa

dalam bidang ini. Laporan kajian tersebut telah dibentangkan dalam

Mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri.

Jemaah Menteri seterusnya memutuskan supaya Akta Dadah Berbahaya

1952 dikaji semula khususnya bagi memberi ruang budi bicara kepada

Hakim dalam menjatuhkan hukuman dengan menetapkan hukuman yang

bersesuaian khususnya ke atas kes-kes di mana pesalah sebenarnya lebih

wajar hanya dihukum penjara, tetapi mungkin peruntukan yang sedia ada

Hakim tiada pilihan selain menjatuhkan hukuman mati. Hasil kajian

tersebut telah dibentangkan dalam Mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri pada 1 Mac

2017 di mana Jemaah Menteri telah bersetuju dan memutuskan bahawa

pindaan dibuat kepada seksyen 39B, Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dengan

memasukkan peruntukan tambahan bagi memberi kuasa budi bicara

kepada mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman selain daripada hukuman mati

mandatori dalam keadaan-keadaan tertentu yang ditetapkan bagi

kesalahan mengedar dadah di bawah seksyen 39B akta berkenaan.

Justeru itu, Kementerian serta agensi yang berkaitan seterusnya akan

menyediakan Memorandum Jemaah Menteri yang baru bersama-sama

dengan cadangan pindaan kepada Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 untuk

pertimbangan dan kelulusan Jemaah Menteri.

Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat juga, satu Jawatankuasa Khas

berkaitan hukuman mati juga telah ditubuhkan pada 5 September 2016

yang dianggotai oleh wakil-wakil dari SUHAKAM, Amnesty International,

Majlis Peguam Malaysia, ahli akademik, Jabatan Peguam Negara,

Kementerian Dalam Negeri dan juga Majlis Keselamatan Negara. Pelbagai

isu berkaitan hukuman mati juga telah dibincangkan dalam Jawatankuasa

Khas sebagai proses konsultasi dengan semua pihak-pihak yang


Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat, terdapat 1,174 orang banduan

yang telah dijatuhi hukuman mati yang masih dalam proses rayuan di

Mahkamah Rayuan, Mahkamah Persekutuan dan Lembaga Pengampunan


Sekian, terima kasih

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Press Statement by M Kula Segaran, DAP National Vice Chairman and MP for Ipoh Barat in Ipoh on 12th July, 2017

MIB: The Indian Community shall not forget that the BN government is capable of announcing plans which it cannot or does not have the real will and commitment to fulfil

Yesterday at the launching of the " 200 Years of Tamil Education in Malaysia" book at Dengkil , the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib said the Malaysian Indian Blue Print ( MIB) is not a pie in the sky plan but a realistic blue print for the well being of the Indian community.

However, the MIB looks more an election gimmick as it was launched so close to the next general election. In 2013 the Prime Minister had signed a MoU with Hindraf. But It did not take off as promised. This clearly shows the Prime Minister was able to announce empty rhetoric promises which his government would not be able to fulfill. Therefore on the issue of MIB, The Indian Community shall not forget that the BN government is capable of announcing plans which it cannot or does not have the real wil and commitment to fulfil.

It is undeniable that the next general election is going to be very challenging for UMNO and BN. There is a possibility that BN which has ruled the nation for decades will lose federal power as there are signs that a Malay tsunami is going to happen.

The MIB is therefore a gimmick for the BN to try to win some Indian support for BN. There is no doubt that with UMNO being rocked by Malay tsunami, BN will be desperate to try to win the Indian support.

Indians voters will play a deciding votes in Parliamentary constituencies. About 60 Parliamentary seats have over 10% as registered voters. In view of the fragile position of the BN now every vote counts more so the seats where MIC is contesting. Thus the MIBP is to butter and to sway the Indians to vote for the BN.

I have said many times that the Indians citizens are the most left out in the progress of the nation. The government promised to achieve 3% equity participation by 2010. When year 2010 came the goalpost/target date was conveniently postponed . Why the shear lack of commitment to achieve this?

In 1970, there were over 17% Indians in the civil service. Now there are less than 5% Indians in the service. The GLCs are dominated by the Malays while the Chinese are strongly represented in the private sector. Indians inhabit the margins of both the civil and private sectors.

These undeniable facts that help explain the accumulation by the race of some unflattering superlatives such as that Indians compose the highest percentage of gangsters, highest incidence of alcoholism, and most number of suicides.

To effectively assist the Indians, unless all issue affecting the community is unearthed and ascertain the short comings with the Indian society nothing much can be achieved. So far the plans and policies are ad hoc an an eyewash justto shore up support from the Indian Community!!
Thus what should have been done is to form a Parliamentary Select committee which could be assigned to look to the real issues affecting the Indian community and thereafter addressing those issue holistically. Why was the Government reluctant to have a Parliamentary Select Committee ?

M.Kula Segaran
012 5034346

Friday, July 7, 2017

MP Speaks

Media Statement by By M Kulasegaran, MP for Ipoh Barat DAP National Vice Chairman in Ipoh on 7th July 2017

Recent decisions handed down by the bench are mystifying, to say the least..Headline: Puzzling rulings of the judiciary

The law is a process of reasoning. It strives to establish justice. Logic is the principal instrument in this pursuit of moral precepts whose goal is to secure justice for members of civil society.

Unfortunately, logic was the chief casualty in two recent judicial rulings.

One ruling held that the Prime Minister of the country did not fall within the ambit of the term “public official.”

Another ruling, handed down by the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, held that the right of every Malaysian to travel abroad is at the absolute discretion of the government.

I want to dwell on this latest ruling before of its immediacy and its impact on civil society activists whose right to travel abroad has been denied.

The appellate court dealt with two articles in the Constitution when ruling in the case of my colleague Tony Pua (MP, Petaling Jaya Utara), who sued for the restoration of his right to travel to Jogjakarta after the Immigration Department had denied him that right two years ago.

A three-member bench ruled that Article 5 which enshrines personal liberty does not confer on an individual the right to travel abroad, and that Article 9, which recognises freedom of movement, refers to the freedom to move among the states of the country, and not abroad.

The court took an unwarrantedly narrow interpretation of both articles, although it invited Pua's counsel to refer to the Federal Court questions with respect to the ambit of Article 5 on personal liberty.

It is true that Article 5 on personal liberty does not enumerate as a right the liberty of an individual to travel abroad.

But if every citizen of the country is allowed to obtain a passport, it stands to reason that he or she has the right to travel abroad. The one confernment is ineluctably bound up with the other.

If an individual has the right to acquire a car driving license, it stands to reason that he/she is not required to request the permission of the authorities to drive his/her car out of his/her garage on to the highway.

The freedom to drive a car is consequent from the right to acquire a driving license.

Thus the right to travel abroad stems from the validity of a passport obtained by an individual.

It is illogical to allow an individual to acquire a passport and then restrict its use for overseas travel by saying this liberty to go abroad is contingent on Immigration's sayso.

Although arguments were adduced in Tony Pua's case in the High Court on whether the acquisition of a passport is a privilege or a right, they are not germane to the thrust and meaning of Articles 5 and 9, the one enshrining personal liberty and the other conferring freedom of movement.

Any conception of personal liberty that bars overseas travel and any endowment of freedom to travel that excludes sojourning abroad are curtailments that are unsustainable based on a reading of our Constitution which embeds liberal democratic tenets.

Similarly, a conception of the office of Prime Minister of Malaysia that does not construe it as a public office and its holder as a “public official”, as a judicial officer held a few months ago, is lame to the point of being ludicrous.

Further the Judges are out of trend when they ruled that the Immigration Department need not give reasons on why Pua was prohibited from traveling abroad. In fact moving with world wide judicial trends the Judges should have demanded as to why is the Immigration Department isolating it self and shying from giving convincing legal reasons that the ban was so required? But by not insisting on this, the Judges have failed to make the Immigration Department and thus other Government departments accountable to the tax payers!!

The judiciary is a vital prop of government whose devotion to the logic and majesty of the law are the warp and woof of civil society.

It becomes a travesty of justice when the courts demean the law's majesty by scanting logic through unwarrantedly mincing interpretations.

M. Kula Segaran
MP for Ipoh Barat