Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysiakini :: Berita

GMI tuntut 'pampasan setara' untuk tahanan ISA

Posted: 15 Sep 2011 10:38 PM PDT

Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI) hari ini menuntut kerajaan memohon maaf dan membayar "pampasan setara" kepada tahanan ISA dan keluarga mereka susulan tindakan kerajaan mahu menghapuskan akta tersebut.

NONE "Semua mangsa ISA perlu dibayar pampasan setara dengan penyeksaan dan pengalaman pahit yang telah dilalui oleh tahanan dan keluarga," kata Pengerusi GMI Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh dalam sidang media di ibu negara.

Pampasan itu, kata Syed Ibrahim (gambar atas, tiga dari kanan) perlu dinilai kerajaan berdasarkan beberapa perkara, antaranya tempoh ditahan, kos ulang alik ke kem tahanan dan keruntuhan rumah tangga.

"Kami berharap kerajaan benar-benar serius untuk membuat penilaian... Ini yang perlu dikaji oleh kerajaan," katanya.

Semalam, Najib dalam pengumuman khas yang disiarkan secara langsung di RTM berkata kerajaan akan memansuhkan ISA dan Akta Buang Negeri 1959.

Selain itu, kerajaan juga akan mengkaji semula beberapa undang-undang lain bagi memastikan ia memenuhi kehendak semasa dan " tidak akan teragak-agak untuk meminda atau memansuhkan undang-undang yang tidak lagi relevan".

Kajian semula komprehensif itu akan melibatkan Akta Kediaman Terhad 1933 dan Akta Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan 1984 di mana prinsip pembaharuan tahunan akan dihapuskan dan digantikan dengan pengeluaran lesen sehingga dibatalkan.

Bercakap dalam sidang media di ibu negara pagi ini, Syed Ibrahim berkata berdasarkan perkembangan terbaru itu, mereka juga menuntut:

Semua "pemuka" yang terlibat dalam menyeksa tahanan ISA mesti di bawa pengadilan.
Kerajaan, menteri berkenaan dan polis mestilah amanah dalam melaksanakan pelbagai prinsip yang ditegaskan oleh perdana menteri dalam ucapannya bukan sekadar "servis bibir".
Kerajaan mestilah memansuhkan lain-lain undang-undang tanpa bicara seperti Akta Dadah Merbahaya.
Kerajaan melaksanakan kajian semula dengan segera dalam tempoh yang spesifik terhadap undang-undang yang menghadkan kebebasan rakyat dan media seperti Akta Polis dan Akta Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan.
Kerajaan mesti patuh kepada piagam hak asasi manusia antarabangsa dalam soal berkaitan aktiviti antipengganas dan melakar pelan jangka panjang dalam membangunkan mekanisme menanganinya keganasan tanpa menjejaskan hak-hak asas dan prinsip keadilan
Kerajaan mesti menangani dan mengesahkan International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCCPR) dan Covention Against Torture dan Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).

[Berita penuh menyusul]

KPN jumpa AG kemuka pandangan kaji Akta Polis

Posted: 15 Sep 2011 10:29 PM PDT

Ketua Polis Negara Tan Sri Ismail Omar akan bertemu dengan Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail bagi memberi pandangan terhadap kajian semula ke atas Seksyen 27, Akta Polis 1967 berhubung
kebebasan berhimpun.

Beliau berkata pandangan yang akan disampaikan oleh Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) meliputi aspek bagaimana hendak mengimbangkan kesejahteraan, hak bersuara dan hak berkumpul di kalangan rakyat.

NONE "Perkara ini adalah untuk kepentingan rakyat supaya keamanan dapat terus dikekalkan," katanya kepada pemberita selepas menghadiri sambutan serentak Hari Malaysia dan Hari Kebangsaan di Dataran Merdeka di Kuala Lumpur hari ini.

Semalam Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak mengumumkan kerajaan akan mengkaji semula Seksyen 27, Akta Polis 1967 dengan mengambil kira peruntukan Perkara 10, Perlembagaan Persekutuan tentang kebebasan berhimpun dengan prinsip menentang sekeras-kerasnya demonstrasi jalanan.

Perdana Menteri berkata kebenaran berhimpun akan diberi selaras dengan kaedah-kaedah yang akan ditetapkan kelak dengan mengambil kira norma-norma di peringkat antarabangsa.

Ismail berkata pengumuman yang dibuat Perdana Menteri malam tadi menunjukkan kesungguhan kerajaan untuk terus melangkah ke hadapan dan dibuat demi kepentingan rakyat.

"Saya lihat (kajian semula) undang-undang lama ini kita perakukan juga...setuju kerana sudah lapuk," katanya.

Tegasnya, PDRM akan terus menjalankan tugas dan tanggungjawab mereka dengan sebaik mungkin dalam memastikan keamanan dan kesejahteraan rakyat tidak tergugat.

- Bernama

Kredit: www.malaysiakini.com

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysiakini :: Letters

No-fault liability is the better scheme

Posted: 15 Sep 2011 02:28 AM PDT

The government has not accepted CAP's proposal for a No-Fault Liability (NFL) scheme for road accident victims and has instead decided to maintain the present system with some changes.

The new third party motor cover which will be implemented early next year is also a fault-based liability (FBL) system. Accident victims will lose out with the rejection of the NFL scheme.

Since the new motor scheme is still based on the principal of FBL, it will not be different from the current scheme as at the end of the day the affected motorist will still:

bear the risk of his claim being rejected by insurers;
have to retain lawyers to take the matter to court;
have to await the court's decision as to who is at fault, and what amount ought to be paid.

The FBL scheme also fails to achieve the object of giving maximum benefit to accident victims. Out of every ringgit of premium collected 30 cents go to commissions and management expenses.

If lawyers' fees are deducted less than 50 cents will go to the victim. In an NFL scheme, no commissions and lawyers' fees need to be paid and the administrative expenses would be less than 10 percent of the amount collected. Thus 90 percent of the amount is available to compensate and rehabilitate victims and provide them other benefits.

Another disadvantage of continuing with a FBL system is that motor accidents will continue to rise. The number of motor accidents was 265,416 in 2001, rose to 363,319 in 2007 and reached 414,421 in 2010.

However, in an NFL scheme one of its foremost aims is the prevention of accidents and the promotion of road safety. The NFL scheme puts great emphasis on accident prevention in order to reduce the number of claims.

The implementations of the NFL in Victoria, Australia saw a 29 percent drop in road fatalities between 2000 and 2009.

If we can reduce road fatalities, this will itself lead to reduction in costs to the courts, in terms of manpower and time when the many road accident cases are being heard.

According to the latest statistics available, there were approximately 11,890 insurance claims pending in the Magistrates Courts throughout Malaysia in July 2006. As of June 2006, there were about 32,267 insurance claims pending in Session Courts.

Claims for compensation arising out of road accident ranked the second highest amongst the total number of civil cases filed during the same period. By switching to NFL, the courts will be freed to hear non-accident cases.

Thus the NFL is a better scheme for road accident victims. The reasons given by Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) as to why the NFL could not be implemented are not convincing.

Firstly, BNM claims that it is the general public which wants to maintain the existing FBL system. However certain vested groups lobbying for the maintenance of the FBL system can in no way be construed as "public" consensus.

Had the public been given sufficient information on the merits of the NFL schemes compared to the existing FBL system, they would have chosen NFL system.

When the Attorney General Chambers proposed a NFL scheme in August 2007 and had consultation with all interested parties including NGOs, it must have been convinced that the current FBL scheme is not benefiting the victims of road accidents.

When BNM also organised a consultation in 2007 and brought experts from countries practicing the NFL scheme to explain how the scheme is carried out and the problems faced, it also must have believed in the merits of NFL.

Thus we do not understand the turn around by BNM and the rejection of the NFL.

The second reason is this: The NFL could not be implemented because a majority held the view that putting a limit on the amount of compensation for injuries suffered is a violation of a person's constitutional rights.

This view is mistaken as there is no constitutional right to unlimited damages. BNM had at one time suggested a RM2 million limit on the amount of compensation for injuries, which is an acceptable figure.

The sum that an accident victim can successfully claim for general damages for pain and suffering in the Malaysian court will depend on case law and the Civil Law Act 1956, which itself was amended to limit the damages recoverable in fatal accident cases.

The third reason given is this: The NFL scheme would need a strong complementary infrastructural support (e.g. fraud prevention and establishment of rehabilitation centres.) for it to work. Since money and time would be needed to move to the NFL scheme, it was rejected.

The NFL is not expected to be implemented immediately. A committee of experts would have to be appointed to plan in detail the establishment of the scheme. Complementary

infrastructural support will grow and develop along with the expansion of the NFL.

As we have emphasised to BNM before, SOCSO is a good example of a NFL scheme which is viable and working well. SOCSO today is a far cry from SOCSO of the early 1980s when CAP highlighted its shortcomings. So why cannot we have a similar scheme for road accident victims?

The implementation of the NFL scheme would take time, maybe a year or two but it is worth the wait because accident victims will benefit from it. It is unfortunate for them that this will not be happening.

The main issues and problems with the current FBL system cannot be solved by the new third party motor cover but only by the introduction of NFL cover.

CAP reaffirms its stand that the new FBL based scheme will not benefit accident victims and should be scrapped. Government must put the interest of road accident victims above that of parties which push for a FBL scheme in order that they may continue to profit from it.

SM Mohamed Idris is President of the Consumers Association of Penang.

Doubts over MAS and AirAsia's tie-ups with QPR

Posted: 15 Sep 2011 12:55 AM PDT

Many years ago there was this advert running on British Television promoting fresh cow's milk featuring the legendary Liverpool/Wales striker Ian Rush saying 'if you don't drink enough milk you will end up playing for Accrington & Stanley' and then the other person asks 'Accrington who?' to which Ian Rush replies 'exactly'.

The current spate of Malaysian personalities buying not so known British Football Clubs raises the same sort of feeling and queries. But hey, they are spending their private money so it is nobody's business to question anything. Well, until recently that is.

When Tony Fernandes bought QPR many of us thought it was not a wise move but each to its own.

However, I did tell my friends back then to just wait few months and we will find AirAsia sponsoring them. Well, we didn't have to wait months, just within one month, not only AirAsia but MAS as well had jumped on the bandwagon.

Both Air Asia and MAS are publicly listed companies and I believe the sponsoring of the owners'/directors' private enterprises should be considered a related party transaction and therefore should get shareholder approval at a general meeting.

Now are the regulators going to question this? Even if no Malaysian rule was broken, surely this is bad corporate governance?

Lets not even go to calculating return on investments for these sponsorship sums which is a separate matter altogether.

MAS is clocking up operating losses - surely sponsoring a lower echelon football club should not be on its priority spending list, given the dire straits it's in and the pressure it is facing from unions.

Based on the published second quarter operating results, MAS suffered a staggering second quarter loss of RM526 million and a cumulative six month period loss up to 30th June 2011 amounting to RM767 million.

Let us not forget the past restructuring of MAS including the widespread asset unbundling exercise which involved lot of taxpayers' money.

Imagine the furore that would erupted if Warren Buffet were to buy say Norwich City Football Club privately and then get Berkshire Investment to sponsor shirts or stadiums.

This is why a public company which is only 25 percent owned by public and 75 percent owned by just one or two persons should not really be categorised as a public company.

Previously I had raised questions why Telekom was sponsoring Manchester United or Petronas sponsoring FI teams when both do not have global products or services for sale.

So is this all about suiting the personal preference of someone but which brings no benefits to the company?

Off course the public relations and marketing gurus will rubbish me and say these are corporate advertising strategies to enhance the company's image.

But public companies do not have to be extravagant. There are so many more alternatives to do this without going over the top.

Indeed some Malaysian government agencies and companies have even taken to spending a lot of money buying advertisements in foreign papers which are again superfluous and wasteful.

All I can say is really "Mana Ada Sistem".

Kredit: www.malaysiakini.com

Khamis, 15 September 2011