Cambodia bans citizens from working as maids in Malaysia

10/14/2011
Reuters

PHNOM PENH — Cambodia has banned its citizens from going to work in Malaysia as maids, its prime minister said on Friday, following a series of horrific reports of beatings and rapes.

The order follows a similar ban imposed by Indonesia on its citizens from taking new jobs as domestic workers in Malaysia, where maids are common in middle-class households, thanks in part to a large migrant labor pool.

"I would like to congratulate the prime minister for the suspension," Cambodia opposition lawmaker Mu Sochua of the Sam Rainsy Party told Reuters after the decision by Prime Minister Hun Sen.

Cambodia's Community Legal Education Center, which is working with abused domestic workers, said there had been reports of three maids who were killed in Malaysia, and two were raped and kept in isolation, their passports held from them.

Indonesia banned its citizens from working as maids in Malaysia in 2009 after several highly publicized cases of physical abuse by Malaysian employers, which triggered anti-Malaysia demonstrations in Jakarta.

Both countries held discussions and reached an agreement in April this year after Malaysia pledged to improve working conditions, but Indonesia has yet to allow hiring to resume, worsening a growing shortage of domestic helpers in the country.

Malaysia is dependent on migrant workers who total up to 2 million people or 21 percent of the country's workforce. Indonesia is the main source of foreign labor in Malaysia. One in every 16 residents in Malaysia's capital hires an Indonesian helper, according to data from the Indonesian Embassy.

An Bunhak, president of the Association of Cambodian Recruiting Agencies, said it would uphold the order from the government to stop sending people to work as maids in Malaysia.

"The Ministry of Labour is enforcing what the prime minister has said," An Bunhak said, adding that about 50,000 maids have sought work in Malaysia since 2009.

Cambodian recruitment agencies also this year decided not to send maids to Kuwait after complaints by human rights groups of abuse by employers there.

Read More

Closing Order of Case 002 Against Senior KR Leaders Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith

Sang Security Centre²⁰⁴⁶

Location and Establishment

476. Sang security centre was a district level security centre located in Trapeang Sva Village, Trea Commune, Kandal Steung District, Kandal Province.²⁰⁴⁷ Applying the CPK's system of identifying administrative boundaries, it was located in district 154 (code-number for Kandal Steung), Sector 25, Southwest Zone. It appears to have commenced operation as a security centre sometime during 1976 or 197 7²⁰⁴⁸ and was operational until the end of the CPK regime.²⁰⁴⁹ Originally a teacher training centre, Sang was ringed by barbed wire and comprised of several concrete structures, including a number of detention buildings, a blacksmith's shack, a kitchen, and a separate house for the prison chairman.²⁰⁵⁰ There were also a number of special detention cells for CPK cadres who had committed serious offences.²⁰⁵¹

Functioning

Structure and Personnel

477. As a district level security centre, Sang was controlled by the district 154 Committee.²⁰⁵² The District Committee would regularly meet with the prison chairman at the Committee's headquarters in Siem Reap Kantuot and one of its successive secretaries, Yann (deceased), would personally visit Sang every two to three months. ²⁰⁵³ South West Zone Secretary, Ta Mok (deceased), may have also visited Sang on a number of occasions.²⁰⁵⁴

478. Up to 20 cadres worked at Sang at any one time.²⁰⁵⁵ There were several different chairmen in charge of Sang during its operation.²⁰⁵⁶ After the first chairman, Mong, was arrested in 1977 or 1978, it appears that other cadres took control of Sang.²⁰⁵⁷ The last chairman, Nev, was in charge of Sang for only a few months before the fall of the CPK regime in January 1979.²⁰⁵⁸ Two former Sang cadres recall that conditions improved after Nev took over. One goes as far as to say that under Nev, no new prisoners arrived, prisoners were not shackled,

and no one was killed.²⁰⁵⁹

Arrest and Detention

479. Seven witnesses and two civil parties who were detained at Sang were interviewed.²⁰⁶⁰ Men, women, and children were all imprisoned there.²⁰⁶¹ At any one time there would be approximately 100 to 300 people in detention²⁰⁶² and prisoners would arrive and leave on a regular basis.²⁰⁶³ However, it appears that under Mong, no-one was released to go back home.²⁰⁶⁴ Those arrested appear to have come mainly from Kandal Steung district.²⁰⁶⁵ Often whole families were brought in together.²⁰⁶⁶ They were a mixture of base people, including CPK cadres, and new people, including former Khmer Republic soldiers.²⁰⁶⁷ A former guard who participated in interrogations recalls that the majority of prisoners were Khmer Republic soldiers. He attests that if someone was accused of being a Lon Nol soldier, CPK cadre would arrest him and bring in the entire family, including children.²⁰⁶⁸ People were arrested for being "enemies" which meant anything from actual or perceived sympathies towards the Khmer Republic regime, the Khmer Sar, feudalism, capitalism, the CIA or the KGB, not following orders, breaking ploughs or stealing food.²⁰⁶⁹ Sometimes people were arrested because others who had been interrogated at Sang Security Cnetre had implicated

them.²⁰⁷⁰

480. Group leaders, village chiefs, and Subdistrict chairmen all brought prisoners to Sang.²⁰⁷¹ Often the prisoners were not told the truth about where they were being taken.²⁰⁷² People arrived by truck, bicycle, ox-cart or on foot. After arriving, they were ordered at gunpoint to get on the ground where their hands were tied. They were then escorted to their cells.²⁰⁷³ It appears that prisoners were put into different categories, as either light or serious prisoners, which determined the conditions of their detention and where they could work.²⁰⁷⁴ One former guard (and later light prisoner) states that those in the most serious category had their legs shackled and were ultimately executed, whereas light prisoners could work outside.²⁰⁷⁵ Those who had committed more serious offences slept in rows of twenty with one leg locked to a long rod or log.²⁰⁷⁶ These prisoners urinated, defecated and slept in the same place.²⁰⁷⁷ However, not everyone was shackled, in particular women.²⁰⁷⁸ Men and women were kept separately in different buildings.²⁰⁷⁹ They slept naked as the prison chief was afraid they could use their clothing to hang themselves.²⁰⁸⁰ One former prisoner recalls a guard coming into his cell and beating his knees with a hammer for no apparent reason.²⁰⁸¹ The food was insufficient and many people died from starvation.²⁰⁸² In addition, prisoners also died from disease and from the injuries they sustained from beatings.²⁰⁸³

481. Prisoners, including children, were forced to work.²⁰⁸⁴ Guards and former prisoners recall that when serious offence prisoners went outside to work they were chained in pairs by their feet.²⁰⁸⁵ A former prisoner recalls farming whilst shackled and having to wrap the chain around his waist.²⁰⁸⁶ Light prisoners would work without being restrained.²⁰⁸⁷ Labour included planting vegetables, rice farming, carrying water, breaking up tree stumps and minding cattle.²⁰⁸⁸ A former guard recalls seeing prisoners being beaten with whips and clubs as they were escorted to work.²⁰⁸⁹ Former prisoners attest to seeing guards beating prisoners to death for minor infractions.²⁰⁹⁰ Sick prisoners who could still work were treated with medicine, whereas those who could not were neglected and sometimes died.²⁰⁹¹

482. Two former cadres recall that sometime in 1978 the Deputy Chairman of Sang, Meng, was imprisoned himself for being "immoral" with a female prisoner.²⁰⁹² Two former detainees heard from others that a female prisoner had been raped by her interrogators, who were themselves subsequently detained.²⁰⁹³ A civil party's nephew states that he eyewitnessed the rape of her sister at Sang.²⁰⁹⁴

Read More

Lady Gaga bans Lady Goo Goo song

Lady Gaga has won an injunction at London's High Court to stop animated character Lady Goo Goo from releasing a single, its makers have said.

Lady Goo Goo, a baby with a long blonde fringe from the Moshi Monsters online game - owned by UK firm Mind Candy - released The Moshi Dance on YouTube.

But Lady Gaga's injunction has stopped its full release, Mind Candy said.

Law firm Mishcon de Reya confirmed it had represented Lady Gaga but said it could not comment further.

The Moshi Monsters game, aimed at six-12-year-olds, invites players to adopt "moshling" characters including Lady Goo Goo, Dustbin Beaver and Roxy.

Its owners had planned to release The Moshi Dance - which features lyrics including "my stroller's pretty and my diapers are silk, I throw my toys out if I don't get my milk" and "my crazy outfits seem to shock" - on iTunes.

Read More

Dana rejects 'sexual' allegations made against relative

Dana Rosemary Scallon has vowed to continue her Irish presidential campaign despite "malicious lies" spread about a member of her family.

Ms Scallon told TV3 News that she had been warned by a freelance journalist that allegations of a "sexual nature" were due to appear in the Irish press.

She said that prompted her to make a statement during a presidential debate on RTE on Wednesday.

She told viewers that she was taking legal action over the claims.

Although she initially refused to state what the "untrue, malicious and vile" allegations were, she admitted on Friday that they were of a sexual nature involving a relative.

She also referred to a "threatening" email she had received, which is understood to have originated in the US.

"I had received an anonymous email on the Saturday night. It wasn't signed," she said.

"I won't be able to share all that was in the mail. It said 'hahahahaha the b**** is finally getting what she deserves' and went on from there to make false accusations."

Ms Scallon said the claims were part of an "orchestrated campaign" against her.

There had been speculation that she may withdraw from the presidential race, as she has not been campaigning for the past two days.

But she vowed to continue her campaign.
'Immense pressure'

Ms Scallon did not go into the details of the claims, but insisted that she was sure they were false.

"I know it is not true, the first time it was ever raised was in a court case in a family dispute. The next time it was raised was during my campaign," she added.

She said she believed it was an attempt "to destroy" her character. "The fact that no action was taken by the alleged victim, to me this proves that it is false," she added.

Ms Scallon also defended her decision to read out a statement during RTE's Prime Time debate that rejected the claims, without clarifying what they were.

"I made it because false and malicious lies and accusations were being made and I had to respond because I was under immense pressure from a freelance journalist.

"I was told there would be extensive coverage over the next few days. I had to put it to rest," she added.

She told RTE viewers on Tuesday: "It has come to my attention that yet further allegations, this time of a most untrue, malicious and vile nature, have been levelled against a member of my family.

"Let it be known that lawyers have already been instructed to forensically investigate a particular communication disseminating this vile and false accusation, which attempts to implicate me and destroy my good character."

Ms Scallon reportedly had to be comforted by the other candidates following the debate.

On Friday she rejected claims that the statement was a publicity stunt.

"I would never try to bring shame to my family name," she added.

The Derry-born candidate added that lines of inquiry were being pursued with "prosecution authorities" in the United States.

She is one of seven candidates whose names will appear on the ballot paper on 27 October.

Ms Scallon, who won the Eurovision Song Contest in 1970, previously stood for the presidency in 1997 and is also a former member of the European parliament.

She has previously faced allegations over her decision to take US citizenship in the 1990s, but has stressed that taking an oath of allegiance to the US constitution did not infringe her Irish citizenship.

The six other candidates in the Irish presidential race are Fine Gael's Gay Mitchell, Labour's Michael D Higgins, Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness and independents Mary Davis, Sean Gallagher and Mr Norris.

Read More

Dangerous precedence in Sultan’s involvement in DUMC case

The decision to use the Sultan of Selangor with regards to the incidence of alleged proselytizing at the Damansara Utama Methodist church dinner has set a dangerous precedence because of several reasons. The people of Malaysia, regardless of the ethnic background and creed, are all directly involved and affected by this historic case in which the Sultan, as the head of Muslim affairs in Selangor, made a legal decision on the very sensitive matter.

While I doubt that the Sultan was truly informed on all aspects, implications, ramifications and potential repercussions of the case, what has been done has been done, and we have to proceed to deal with it, possibly for many years to come. The king may reverse the situation if he rescinds his ruling but this seems unlikely to happen. So the first question that needs to be asked is why hasn’t the syariah court given the opportunity to contribute to the solution of the case? Since the case also involves non-Muslims, shouldn’t the civil court also be involved? We realize of course that if the two courts joined the tussle, it would lead to confusion about which law to apply on whom. Should the Muslims be dealt with with syariah law and the Christians be dealt with by applying civil law? But how would one settle the case with two laws clashing on a case that could potentially result in differing judgments made on two different parties, or both parties becoming affected by ruling of laws that shouldn’t apply to them? It would be a classic case of religious rights and freedom in which two irreconcilable laws try to dominate without any acceptable resolution! All it would do would be to cause an international embarrassment and shame to the country’s ridiculous two-layered legal system!

So now we have a situation in which the Sultan has been used as an instrument of solution, which immediately results in many people raising issues about what’s right and wrong. The royal ruling was made without any legal basis because he made it only as the leader of Islamic affairs in the state. There was no trial to decide who was guilty or not guilty. As a result the ruling in which the Sultan supported the raid by JAIS but assuring all that none would be charged, although the 12 Muslims who attended the fund-raising dinner would be given counseling, is spurious. The immediate assumption is that DUMC is guilty and that there was an attempt to proselytize. This then makes DUMC appear guilty, and so is in a defensive position while it is expected to keep silent and let the whole thing cool down. But it is not to be. Various parties are voicing out their unhappiness. The response from Sarawak is that one’s religion is one’s personal affair with God and none has the right to interfere in it.

The other issue is the question of JAIS’ right to flagrantly enter a church and disrupt its activities. Ng Kam Weng, of The Micah Mandate writes that “the jurisdiction granted by Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution was to permit the state to control or restrict the propagation of religion among people professing to be Muslims. This must be read in the context of the Article itself which fundamentally provides for every person the freedom to profess, practice and propagate his religion…. There is no legal provision under the Propagation Enactment that allows Jais officials to intrude into the premises of DUMC, much less carry out a raid. From my reading of the Selangor Enactment (1988), the closest possible justification that can be offered by Jais are Sections 12 and 13, which specify that ‘an authorised officer may investigate the commission of any offence under this Enactment and may arrest without warrant any person suspected of having committed any such offence.’”

By this, clearly JAIS is in the wrong and should be judged for a contravention of provisions of the Federal Constitution and the Propagation Enactment. I agree with Bob Teoh, an online commentator, that JAIS “cannot hide behind its spurious actions and be exonerated from its controversial intrusion into a charity dinner held at a church…. It must be held accountable for its actions because it strikes at the very heart of criminal jurisprudence, law enforcement, and administration of justice — Islamic or otherwise. Jais cannot (be)…allowed to get away with it through flawed reasoning…. Jais descended upon a charity function…without invitation, permission or due authority…. Conducting a search without a warrant or an order from the court is considered an extra-judicial action. Is Jais, therefore, exempt from due process? And if so, why?”

The simplistic method of using the Sultan to supposedly settle the whole thing down is clearly illegal and is a denial of the due process of law. What should have been done was to allow the due legal process to be carried out, especially because this is a test case for the country’s dual legal system. Such a process may be protracted and expensive but it is necessary to give our judicial system a sense of honesty and transparency, and an opportunity for clarification and resolution for the long term legal benefits of all Malaysians. Unfortunately, because of the simplistic approach, we are all left hanging with the doubt and dissatisfaction. Because of this the civil-syariah dilemma will continue unresolved, and several questions will continue to haunt us. Will any church building be safe from raids by Islamic enforcement teams from now on, with or without reasonable cause? Which law should now precede in cases involving proselytization, or cases in which Muslim voluntarily joins a church to become Christians (without the church being aware that they are Muslims)?

The other danger in this precedence is the now questionable position of the Sultan as the king of all the people of Selangor. He is installed as people’s king, not merely the king of the Muslims. By taking sides in a religious issue, he has established an unwanted position as a king who is a protector of Muslims and no longer favouring the Christians. By making the decision he has also entered into the soiled realm of politics. Royals are supposed to be above politics being the patron and protector of all his people regardless of their race and religion. Sadly, in the case of Selangor, this may no longer be the case.

Read More

Anwar the unsinkable

Chua Jui Meng warns BN that prison will not erase Anwar’s political appeal.

Chua, who became a political activist when he was studying law, joined MCA in 1976. He was elected as MP for Bakri (Johor) in 1986 and retained the seat for five consecutive terms. He became Deputy International Trade and Industries Minister in 1990 and Health Minister in 1995.

G. Vinod, Free Malaysia Today

Inside or outside of prison, Anwar Ibrahim will always be a force to reckon with.

That is the view of a lot of people, whether they like or hate the opposition leader. But Chua Jui Meng, who repeated the statement in a recent FMT interview, is an admirer.

“I’ve never seen a man so touched by God ,” said the former health minister who is now a vice-president in Anwar’s PKR.

Some may say that is a tad too effusive, even coming from a comrade in arms. But Chua insisted that he had “seen it all” in decades of active politics. “Anwar is touched by God in a very special way. Despite the persecution he is suffering, he is still as bold as ever.”

One manifestation of that boldness, according to Chua, is that Anwar is never shy, even when addressing a predominantly Malay crowd, of articulating his belief that all races can thrive in Malaysia without anyone having to deprive anyone else. “That’s extremely rare,” coming from a Malay politician in Malaysia, he said.

He cautioned his former colleagues in Barisan Nasional that having Anwar behind bars would be politically detrimental to them.

Imprisoning him on “fabricated charges of sodomy” would only help Pakatan Rakyat win more seats in elections, he said.

“And I believe Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is not unintelligent to know that putting Anwar behind bars will make a martyr of him. Remember what happened in 1998. Those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it.”

Chua, who became a political activist when he was studying law, joined MCA in 1976. He was elected as MP for Bakri (Johor) in 1986 and retained the seat for five consecutive terms. He became Deputy International Trade and Industries Minister in 1990 and Health Minister in 1995.

He joined PKR in July 2009, citing Malaysia’s need for a strong two-party system.

Game changer

Chua believes that BN leaders know how strong Anwar’s political influence is and will continue to harass him.

But Anwar would always “bounce back strongly”, he said.

“I always tell the non-Malays that it took 50 years for Malaysia to have a man the stature of Anwar.”

Speaking about Pakatan’s chances in the coming polls, Chua said the government’s crackdown on Bersih 2.0 last July had swung fence-sitters to the opposition’s side.

He dismissed the notion that the hudud controversy had caused a dwindling of support for the opposition bloc, saying that many non-Malays, especially the Chinese, had warmed up to PAS.

“The Chinese and Indians may not support hudud, but they respect PAS’ views on it. They know PAS is a game changer in the current political landscape.”

In addition, Chua said, the non-Malays were aware that it would be tough for PAS to legalise hudud in Malaysia without it occupying two-thirds of the seats in Parliament.

“And Umno should realise that it can no longer use hudud as a spectre to frighten the non-Malays like it did in 1999. People are more politically savvy these days.”

In the aftermath of Anwar’s sacking from the Cabinet in 1998, the Malays abandoned the ruling coalition but Chinese and Indians voters kept BN in power out of fear of racial riots and the hudud provisions of Islamic law.

Chua said the main challenge he was facing as PKR’s Johor chief was to get Pakatan’s message across to the rural areas. “Umno is going all out to prevent us from reaching out to Johoreans.”

Read More

Selangor dances the limbo for JAIS

The Sultan's decree does not resolve important issues raised by the farcical raid on DUMC and has left many with bottled up feelings of resentment and discontent

Officials of DUMC have, from the outset, vehemently denied the allegations that Muslims had been proselytised at what they claim was a multiethnic gathering to raise funds for HIV/AIDS. They have however, criticised the actions of JAIS enforcement officials for their role and conduct in the unauthorised raid.

Mariam Mokhtar, Free Malaysia Today

The principal parties involved in the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (JAIS) raid on a Methodist church function last August have officially endorsed the sultan’s solution, and the matter is deemed closed.

The Sultan of Selangor’s brief statement said that “….there had been attempts to subvert the faith and belief of Muslims” during the dinner at the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC) organised by the NGO Harapan Komuniti during Ramadan.

Despite this, many issues remain unresolved and the rakyat is more perplexed than ever because his statement raises more questions than answers.

How much involvement has Umno in the affairs of an opposition led state, do state religious authorities think that they are above the law and had abuses of power by JAIS been swept under the carpet?

The statement did not allude to any evidence uncovered in these “attempts” at proselytisation, neither did it make reference to the Christians.

However, it mentioned that no further legal action could be taken because of insufficient evidence and that JAIS had acted correctly in conducting the search.

Sultan Sharafuddin said: “Therefore, after carefully deliberating the report by JAIS and after obtaining advice from religious authorities and legal experts, we are in agreement that there would be no prosecution against any party.

“We are satisfied that the actions of JAIS were correct and did not breach any law enforceable in Selangor. We command that (Islamic officials) provide counseling to Muslims who were involved in the said dinner, to restore their belief and faith in the religion of Islam.”

Officials of DUMC have, from the outset, vehemently denied the allegations that Muslims had been proselytised at what they claim was a multiethnic gathering to raise funds for HIV/AIDS. They have however, criticised the actions of JAIS enforcement officials for their role and conduct in the unauthorised raid.

Perhaps, the most disquieting statement was when the sultan said that he was “gravely concerned and extremely offended by the attempts of certain parties to weaken the faith and belief of Muslims.”

Malaysians have remarked that they are just as offended because nothing has been done to check high-handed officialdom and the mistrust which the officials have in the rakyat.

Firstly, they are offended that Malays are perceived to be of weak faith and an even weaker constitution, that their presence in a largely Christian flock, when hymns are sung or prayers said, could make them denounce their faith.

Secondly, the notion that any multiethnic event, be it a funeral, Christmas party, celebration of a festival or something as innocuous as a dinner, is seen as an attempt to convert the Muslim brethren.

As defender of the faith, the sultan had also directed his subjects to stop questioning the actions of JAIS and that activities which spread other religions to Muslims should cease.

He said: “The religion of Islam as practised in Selangor is one of tolerance. Muslims are always encouraged to respect the believers of other religions. However, persons or parties cannot take the opportunity to spread other religions to Muslims.”

What if a similar raid was on a mosque?

But disgruntled non-Muslims have remarked: “It is all right for you Muslims. But who speaks for us, when members of our community undergo forced conversions?

“Families are torn apart, children are separated from their mothers, bodies are snatched from graves, marriages cannot be registered. Where is the freedom to practise our religion as provided in the constitution?”

A Malay resident of Petaling Jaya living beside a Church said: “No one questions JAIS for wanting to do its job. The issue is how JAIS conducted itself when it carried out the raid.

“Did JAIS have any respect of the sanctity of a place of worship? Did it even follow procedures when conducting the raid? Are there any standard procedures in the first instance?

“If a similar raid were to be conducted on a mosque, wouldn’t there be a Muslim backlash? Without search warrants or strict adherence to guidelines to raid, do you think anyone will have any respect for authority if they simply bulldoze their way in?

“Where is the respect for another person’s religion?” Where is our tolerance?”

Read More