MALAYSIA has quite the track record when it comes to human rights violations, whether it is political persecution or holding prisoners without trial.
Last October, Malaysia was called out by Human Rights Watch when police detained 12 people, including two ruling coalition politicians, for more than two weeks without bail or trial under the draconian Security Offences (Special Measures) Act.
This law is often used as an excuse to violate international human rights standards on the right to a fair trial.
Considering the country’s questionable justice system, it is not shocking that Malaysian fugitive, Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low, has reportedly been granted asylum by a country that acts in line with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and European Convention on Human Rights.
This came after a whirlwind of a year for Low, including reaching a billion-dollar settlement with the US, and getting his Cypriot passport revoked, all while remaining in hiding.
Malaysia’s police chief has been vocal about his efforts to bring Low – the alleged mastermind of the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal – back to Malaysia to stand trial.
This month, he criticised the authorities of the country harbouring Low for their lack of sincerity and blamed them for his inability to get Low back to Malaysia by the end of the year.
Malaysia’s 1MDB scandal
But can we blame the unnamed country for its refusal to cooperate?
Recent statements from a media adviser of Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad include lines like “let’s do a Mossad and get our hands on him,” and “just dig him out of the worm hole… and bring him back to Malaysia kicking and screaming”.
Clearly, Low’s chances at receiving a fair trial were he to return to Malaysia are not high.
The irony is that the police chief is labelling the asylum-granting country as “irresponsible”, when Malaysia is doing the exact same thing with Indian preacher Zakir Naik.
Malaysia has granted Zakir permanent residency, despite that fact India is seeking his extradition on account of money laundering as well as instigating terrorism.
Dr Mahathir earlier cited concerns that Zakir might be denied a fair trial in India, which warranted his protection in Malaysia.
If Malaysia has the right to protect Zakir, surely another country has the right to protect Low if they, too, believe that he will not be afforded a fair trial?
THE MALAYSIAN INSIGHT
There is a difference between Jho Low and Zakir Naik. Zakir is considered as equivalent to a saint by Muslims here, whereas Jho is a considered a gambler, drinker, etc
ReplyDelete