Friday, June 14, 2019

Mahathir - no regard for international treaties

From MM Online (extracts):

No justification for Malaysia to refuse Zakir Naik’s extradition, experts insist


Lawyers and experts are of the opinion that Malaysia has an obligation to cooperate with India on the extradition of Dr Zakir Naik

Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

KUALA LUMPUR, June 14 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s claim that Malaysia has the right to refuse controversial televangelist Dr Zakir Naik’s extradition back to India is unjustified, lawyers and experts have said.

They also chided the prime minister for attempting to conflate Dr Zakir’s status to that of Sirul Azhar Umar's, the former police commando sentenced to death here for murdering Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, currently seeking refuge in Australia.

he thinks he can do what he likes with regards to international treaties

and DAP & PKR are silent, allowing him to act as a dictator

"As a matter of law, Zakir Naik ought to be extradited if there is a request made by India, save and unless the operative provisions of Section 8 of the Extradition Act 1992 comes into play," lawyer Nizam Bashir told Malay Mail.
Malaysia and India signed an extradition treaty in 2010.

Section 8 of the Extradition Act 1992 imposes restrictions on the executive power to surrender fugitive criminals to a country seeking the return of such criminals.

Nizam explained that under the Act, an extradition can be prevented if the offence is of political nature, or the courts believe that the offender may be tried or punished for political reasons in his home country.

In addition, Putrajaya can also deny such a request if the fugitive is being prosecuted or punished on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions, or if the fugitive may be prejudiced at his or her trial.

"However, there is nothing on the present facts which would justify Malaysia refusing to accede to an extradition request for Zakir Naik,” he said.

"The same cannot be said of Australia refusing to extradite Sirul, given that Sirul would be facing capital punishment on repatriation to Malaysia.”

Poor UN refugee Praphan Pipithnamporn, who Mahathir callously extradited to Thailand to the horrors of that nation's lèse-majesté law and punishments, should have been the one to be exempted from extradition in accordance with
Section 8 of the Extradition Act 1992.

Praphan Pipithnamporn
I wish I had the chance of having tea with the Malaysian PM 

The lady would undeniably be prosecuted or punished on account of her political opinions, and would be prejudiced at her trial for her anti-monarchy views.

But Mahathir in his callous disregard for humanitarian concerns, human rights, respect for UN HR sanction and total lack of compassion booted her into the waiting claws of the Thai authorities.

Instead, he protected Zakir Naik, an alleged criminal, from extradition to India with its renowned civil courts on the slanderous arguments the preacher won't face justice in India.

tea with an alleged criminal 

He not only showed his ugly face of hypocrisy, religious prejudice, self political interests but also slanderous disregard for Malaysia-India relationship.

He had shown the same disregard for international treaties in the case of disallowing Ong Boon Hwa to resettle in Sitiawan. A disgrace to Malaysia's standing within the Global community.



  1. I disagree with those who say Toonsie’s refusal to extradite Zakar Naik to India is due to self-political interests.

    It is due to religion. Muslims cannot surrender to Hindus. Extraditing Zakar Naik to India would be just that.

    Why not political reason? Because Muslims from both sides of the political divide are in support of Zakar Naik. The majority of Muslims in Bersatu, PKR, Amanah, PAS, UMNO etc all support this decision. You didn’t show the pictures of Zakar Naik being feted by Jibby and PAS leaders. So it is not Toonsie’s political self-interest but Islam’s interest. It is not right to just blame him.

  2. A Mamak will defend his own brother Mamaks.

    That's because they come from a long history (thousands of years) of being made Outcasts/Untouchables in India.

    Remember also the repatriation of Uighurs case and Turkish case, besides the Thai case? So, why the difference?

    All because, they aren't Mamaks even though they are also Moslems.