Caning: Deterrent or abuse?

Source: Asia sentinel October 25, 2011:There is rising opposition to a Malaysian plan to deport Burmese refugees and asylum seekers from civil rights groups, Malaysia’s leading opposition party and the Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus until there is job security and safety in their homeland. The Asean caucus, in a press release, said that: “Those who flee Myanmar (as Burma is also known), namely ethnic and other persecuted minorities, remain at risk from persecution of all forms - forced labor, land confiscation, rape, and torture among them - should they continue to live under the military regime. Thus, they risk their lives to find asylum in neighboring states, in pursuit of a dignified, secure and peaceful life elsewhere.” Many of the Burmese belong to ethnic minorities and fled their homeland for fear of forced labor, rape, violence, murder and persecution by the government army, the Asean caucus said. Under the terms of the pact, Malaysia is scheduled to deport 1,000 Burmese currently held at detention centers, mostly for immigration offenses, while Burma will return Malaysian detainees, Malaysian Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein announced last week. Malaysia, as a relatively rich country with porous borders and geographic proximity to some poor ones, has been wrestling with questions over refugees for months if not years. There are believed to be millions of Indonesian economic migrants in the country as well as an estimated 340,000 Burmese including more than 87,000 refugees registered by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and an unknown number of Cambodians. In September, a so-called “Malaysia solution” with Australia seeking a regional solution, fell through, leaving both countries in a continuing quandary. Under the proposed policy, announced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard in May, Australia would have accepted 4,000 certified refugees from Malaysia, most of them Christian or Buddhist Burmese, in exchange for 800 asylum seekers who were to be sent to Malaysia. The 4,000 that Australia wished to trade, including unaccompanied children, are currently held on Christmas Island, 2,750 km from Darwin. They are believed to be mostly Muslims. The scheme was an attempt to stem a continuing influx into Australia from poverty-stricken or war-torn countries, particularly Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. The idea behind the swap - to be paid for by the Australian government - was to both seek to come up with a regional solution and to put an end to dangerous boat trips. However, the scheme ran afoul of the fact that Malaysia, like many other Southeast Asian nations, is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Refugees and thus, according to lawyers arguing against the plan, there was no way to guarantee that the refugees to be swapped would be treated humanely. In Malaysia, Lim Kit Siang, the chairman of the opposition Democratic Action Party, said that the detainee exchange between Malaysia and Burma should be suspended until there is assurance that both refugees and asylum seekers will be protected from prosecution. “The agreement will only further jeopardize the dignity and security of Myanmar refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia. Those who flee Myanmar remain at risk of persecution in all forms,” Lim told a press conference in the lobby of Parliament. Speaking with The Irrawaddy, Agung Putri, the executive director of the Asean Inter-parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC), said migrants come to Malaysia for different reasons, so the country should review the reasons the Burmese flee to Malaysia. She said many do not come for economic reasons, but because of systematic persecution in their homeland. The refugees, she said, must be categorized differently from Indonesian and Cambodian migrants. “We would like Malaysia to overthrow its policy, and suspend the exchange,” Putri said. On Oct. 19, Suaram, a Malaysian rights group, released a statement saying that the Malaysia-Burma pact could result in some Burmese nationals being forced to return to a country "where their lives could be in danger." Aung Naing Thu, a Burmese activist in Malaysia, told The Irrawaddy that the security of Burmese refugees and asylum seekers is at risk, and employment is uncertain for them if they are deported to Burma. “Many of the refugees don’t want to return to Burma,” he said. “If they do go back, they have to worry about their safety,” said Aung Naing Thu. The human rights situation in Burma, grievous as it remains, is unlikely to be able to ensure such protections, without which Malaysia cannot hope to fulfill its international obligations to ensure that human rights of refugees be protected, said the AIPMC in a statement. The Asean caucus said the refugee swap, “which would see Burmese nationals returned to persecution in their homeland, serves political interests well ahead of these exceedingly serious human rights concerns. Contrary to the principles of international law upon which Asean is founded, such an agreement would only further jeopardize the dignity and security of Burmese refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia; indeed, who themselves should be considered among the region's most vulnerable.” The caucs called for a halt to any such plans until effective systems can be put place to ensure that such refugees and asylum seekers be protected from persecution upon their return to Burma. “The human rights situation in Myanmar, grievous as it remains, is unlikely to be able to ensure such protections, without which Malaysia cannot hope to fulfill its international obligations to ensure that human rights of refugees be protected.

Source: Asia sentinel October 25, 2011:There is rising opposition to a Malaysian plan to deport Burmese refugees and asylum seekers from civil rights groups, Malaysia’s leading opposition party and the Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus until there is job security and safety in their homeland. The Asean caucus, in a press release, said that: “Those who flee Myanmar (as Burma is also known), namely ethnic and other persecuted minorities, remain at risk from persecution of all forms - forced labor, land confiscation, rape, and torture among them - should they continue to live under the military regime. Thus, they risk their lives to find asylum in neighboring states, in pursuit of a dignified, secure and peaceful life elsewhere.” Many of the Burmese belong to ethnic minorities and fled their homeland for fear of forced labor, rape, violence, murder and persecution by the government army, the Asean caucus said. Under the terms of the pact, Malaysia is scheduled to deport 1,000 Burmese currently held at detention centers, mostly for immigration offenses, while Burma will return Malaysian detainees, Malaysian Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein announced last week. Malaysia, as a relatively rich country with porous borders and geographic proximity to some poor ones, has been wrestling with questions over refugees for months if not years. There are believed to be millions of Indonesian economic migrants in the country as well as an estimated 340,000 Burmese including more than 87,000 refugees registered by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and an unknown number of Cambodians. In September, a so-called “Malaysia solution” with Australia seeking a regional solution, fell through, leaving both countries in a continuing quandary. Under the proposed policy, announced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard in May, Australia would have accepted 4,000 certified refugees from Malaysia, most of them Christian or Buddhist Burmese, in exchange for 800 asylum seekers who were to be sent to Malaysia. The 4,000 that Australia wished to trade, including unaccompanied children, are currently held on Christmas Island, 2,750 km from Darwin. They are believed to be mostly Muslims. The scheme was an attempt to stem a continuing influx into Australia from poverty-stricken or war-torn countries, particularly Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. The idea behind the swap - to be paid for by the Australian government - was to both seek to come up with a regional solution and to put an end to dangerous boat trips. However, the scheme ran afoul of the fact that Malaysia, like many other Southeast Asian nations, is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Refugees and thus, according to lawyers arguing against the plan, there was no way to guarantee that the refugees to be swapped would be treated humanely. In Malaysia, Lim Kit Siang, the chairman of the opposition Democratic Action Party, said that the detainee exchange between Malaysia and Burma should be suspended until there is assurance that both refugees and asylum seekers will be protected from prosecution. “The agreement will only further jeopardize the dignity and security of Myanmar refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia. Those who flee Myanmar remain at risk of persecution in all forms,” Lim told a press conference in the lobby of Parliament. Speaking with The Irrawaddy, Agung Putri, the executive director of the Asean Inter-parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC), said migrants come to Malaysia for different reasons, so the country should review the reasons the Burmese flee to Malaysia. She said many do not come for economic reasons, but because of systematic persecution in their homeland. The refugees, she said, must be categorized differently from Indonesian and Cambodian migrants. “We would like Malaysia to overthrow its policy, and suspend the exchange,” Putri said. On Oct. 19, Suaram, a Malaysian rights group, released a statement saying that the Malaysia-Burma pact could result in some Burmese nationals being forced to return to a country "where their lives could be in danger." Aung Naing Thu, a Burmese activist in Malaysia, told The Irrawaddy that the security of Burmese refugees and asylum seekers is at risk, and employment is uncertain for them if they are deported to Burma. “Many of the refugees don’t want to return to Burma,” he said. “If they do go back, they have to worry about their safety,” said Aung Naing Thu. The human rights situation in Burma, grievous as it remains, is unlikely to be able to ensure such protections, without which Malaysia cannot hope to fulfill its international obligations to ensure that human rights of refugees be protected, said the AIPMC in a statement. The Asean caucus said the refugee swap, “which would see Burmese nationals returned to persecution in their homeland, serves political interests well ahead of these exceedingly serious human rights concerns. Contrary to the principles of international law upon which Asean is founded, such an agreement would only further jeopardize the dignity and security of Burmese refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia; indeed, who themselves should be considered among the region's most vulnerable.” The caucs called for a halt to any such plans until effective systems can be put place to ensure that such refugees and asylum seekers be protected from persecution upon their return to Burma. “The human rights situation in Myanmar, grievous as it remains, is unlikely to be able to ensure such protections, without which Malaysia cannot hope to fulfill its international obligations to ensure that human rights of refugees be protected.

Within the Kajang Prison Unit Security (UKP) are 10 individuals who belong to an elite corps, handpicked to carry out a specialised task that requires both skill and strength. They are all big and strong.

Their powerful build is a necessity for the job; they have to swing a metre-long cane at 160 kilometres per hour to create a force upon impact of 90 kilogrammes. They are the prison’s caning officials.

In 2005 a local daily reported that there were 50 caning officers and executioners in Malaysia. Unlike hanging, caning is a highly sought-after job among prison officials, especially after that year, when the government increased the bonus from RM3 to RM10 per stroke.

“We get many applicants for the job,” said a Kajang Prison UKP official who gave his name only as Baharuddin. “It pays well and it’s not a difficult job if you have the stomach for it.”

Baharuddin confessed that he does not have that hardy a stomach. His tolerance extends only to explaining the graphic images plastered around the Prisons Department booth, which he was manning at the Second General Police and Special Equipment Exhibition and Conference in Putrajaya.

According to him, the training of caning officials involve teaching them to lift the canes, taking a full body twirl and landing the cane on an small target with accuracy. Once they get the hang of this, they sharpen the skill by practising on small sandbags.

“We use three different canes for different purposes,” he said, gesturing at the canes on exhibition. “The first cane is for violent crimes like armed robbery or rape, the second is for white-collar crimes and the third is for juvenile offenders.”

The first cane is also used on illegal immigrants. In 1996, amendments to the Immigration Act made caning mandatory for illegal entry and forging of immigration documents. Six years later, Parliament made immigration violations punishable by “whipping of not more than six strokes”.

Gross atrocity

Amnesty International Malaysia is among the scores of NGOs who have decried whipping as a gross atrocity of human rights and is lobbying hard for this “act of barbarism” to be abolished.

In a report entitled “A Blow To Humanity: Torture by Judicial Caning in Malaysia”, Amnesty estimated that about 10,000 people are caned each year, the majority being foreign nationals.

In 2009, the government revealed that 34,923 foreigners were caned between 2002 and 2008. More than 60% were Indonesians, 14% were Myanmars and 14% were Filipinos.

“Under international human rights law, any punishment that is intentionally inflicted by an official and causes servere pain and suffering to the victim is considered torture,” Amnesty said.

Caning for criminal offences was introduced by the British colonial administration. It imposed the Indian Penal Code on the Straits Settlements in 1870, eventually extending it to the Malay peninsula.

In the 19th century, English criminal law provided for caning for a variety of offences. However, Britain has long abolished caning, as has India.

“Among the Commonwealth countries that have not yet abolished caning, Malaysia is the only country that has a population of over 10 million people and a high level of human development,” Amnesty stated.

Zaman Khan, a former director-general of the Prisons Department, has a dual stand on whipping. While he advocates it as an appropriate punishment for violent crimes, he abhors its use on asylum seekers.

“I have also been the Criminal Investigation Department director and I can tell you that it is very hard to have mercy on perpetrators when you have looked into their victims’ eyes,” he said.

“The people who have hurt the innocent deserve to be whipped. But not genuine refugees who are escaping atrocities in their own countries.”

No distinction

Baharuddin, however, brushed this distinction aside. To him it is simple; whoever breaks the law has to accept the punishment.

He acknowledged the accuracy of most of Amnesty’s report findings as well as the first-hand account of a whipping sentence that Myanmar refugee Nom Khai gave to FMT in an earlier interview.

“But there are some facts that are inaccurate,” he frowned. “We don’t purposely withhold the sentence date and time, like Amnesty claims. The inmates are duly informed when the sentence is passed in court.

“We also provide adequate medical treatment after the caning. The inmate is taken to the prison hospital every day for iodine treatment to prevent infection and speed up the healing.”

Nom Khai told FMT he did not receive any medical treatment aside from iodine, which was swiped across his buttocks with a paint brush immediately after the caning.

Baharuddin elaborated on other aspects of the caning procedure. According to him, the doctor who assesses an inmate’s fitness for caning is meant to check for serious conditions like cancer or heart ailments.

“If an inmate is found to suffer from either, he will be presented in court again for a different sentence, perhaps a longer jail term or a fine,” he explained.

Baharuddin also disputed Amnesty’s report that if an inmate loses consciousness from pain during the caning, the doctor present is ordered to revive him so that the caning can continue.

Physical and psychological scars

“That is not true,” he said. “If the inmate faints, we stop the caning and take him to court. But they don’t usually faint.

“Most of the time, they just scream for their mothers or call out for God’s mercy. Except for the Chinese. They take it very quietly.”

Baharuddin protested against allegations of inmates bribing caning officers to miss a stroke. According to Amnesty’s report, caning officials exploit a loophole in the system that allows for a missed stroke to count as valid.

“If they miss a stroke, they are taken off the team to undergo a refresher course,” he said. “This means they lose their additional income. So why would they risk that?

“Besides, if an inmate is to be given more than three strokes, we switch the officials to maintain momentum. They can’t all be bribed. And there is no such thing as instalments. The inmate receives all his strokes at one time.”

Asked if each stroke was made atop a previous one, Baharuddin replied that it depended on the caning official.

“Sometimes he aims for the same spot, or if he’s in the mood, he goes for the Adidas logo,” he chuckled.

Caning, according to former inmates, leaves both physical and psychological scars. Those interviewed by Amnesty spoke of visible scarring, pain in the remaining wound, pinched nerves, post-traumatic stress disorder and a lightheaded feeling that continued years after the caning.

An inmate told Amnesty that the purpose of caning was not only to punish a person for a past crime but also to deter him from committing another.

But in 2008, Immigration director Baharom Talib said that 4,326 illegal immigrants had returned to Sabah to work after being caned and deported. It is a risk most of them are willing to take for the sake of their and their families’ future.

Kop Thang, who had fled abuses by the military in Myanmar’s Chin state, told Amnesty: “I was crying. I thought of my experiences in Myanmar, being abused and tortured, and now being abused here in Malaysia. I felt I was still not safe.”

Source : FreeMalaysiaToday