Modern-day slavery uncovered at Perak furniture factory
BATU GAJAH: Forced to live without wages since December last year, 55 foreign workers at a furniture factory near Lahat here were compelled to borrow from a nearby sundry shop to survive, while their passports were held by their employer.
Their ordeal, along with that of six Malaysian workers, came to an end today when they were rescued by police in a joint operation with the Department of Labour (JTK) and the Department of Environment.
Perak Police Chief Datuk Noor Hisam Nordin said the foreign workers, all men aged between 19 and 45, were from Bangladesh, Myanmar and Nepal while the six Malaysians, aged between 35 and 60, comprised three men and three women.
'A 58-year-old Malaysian man, believed to be the factory manager and employer, has been arrested. The factory, which processes wood for furniture, has been in operation for 28 years,' he said when met at the site.
Noor Hisam said several of the victims had informed authorities that they were forced to borrow money from a nearby shop owner to purchase daily necessities, especially food.
'We were also told that all the (foreign) victims' passports were being held by the employer to prevent them from fleeing,' he added.
All victims will be taken to the Perak Contingent Police Headquarters (IPK) for documentation before being transferred today to the Fourth Protection Centre (RP4) in Tanjung Kling, Melaka.
The case is being investigated under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act (ATIPSOM) 2007.
Meanwhile, Perak JTK director Mohd Nizar Zakaria said the employer was found to have committed several violations under the Employment Act 1955 and Section 24(D) of the Minimum Standards of Housing, Accommodations and Employee Facilities Act 1990 [Act 446].
'The offences include failure to pay wages, delayed salary payments, unlawful deductions, absence of valid employment contracts, and failure to provide suitable accommodation for workers,' he said.
Mohd Nizar emphasised that such enforcement is vital as a proactive measure to address non-compliance with labour laws.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Appeals Court set Aug 19 for decision in activist's appeal over challenge to online speech law
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. Heidy Quah Gaik Li, the founder of Refuge for Refugees is claiming the use of the words 'offensive' and annoy' in Section 233 of the Act are invalid as it goes against two fundamental human rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with 'intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. In Sept 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, leading her to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The hearing today was a continuation of proceedings that had begun earlier. Justice Lee was serving as a Court of Appeal judge before being elevated to the Federal Court in May this year. During today's hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin representing the Malaysian government submitted that speech involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech or incitement to violence are not expressions protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He argued that the right to free speech should be used to disseminate truth, respect for human dignity and perform essential informing function. On the other hand, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing Quah argued the words 'offensive' or annoy contained in Section 233 is inconsistent with Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, namely the right to equality and freedom of speech. He argued that the two words in Section 233 are not a 'permissible restriction' under public order as prescribed in the Federal Constitution. In July 2021, Quah, 31, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making 'offensive' online comments in a Facebook post. In April the following year, the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) due to the charge under section 233(1)(a) being defective.
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
Shafee: Najib should be granted DNAA due to prolonged delay
KUALA LUMPUR: Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah has called for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) for Datuk Seri Najib Razak over RM27 million money laundering charges linked to SRC International Bhd, citing prolonged uncertainty in the case. Shafee, representing the former prime minister, made the submission after the Attorney-General's Chambers (A-GC) rejected a representation letter seeking to quash the three charges brought against Najib in 2019. Deputy public prosecutor Mohd Ashrof Adrin Kamarul told the court that while the prosecution was ready to proceed with a full trial, more time was needed to sort out documents related to the case. A DNAA means a person is released from the charges without being fully acquitted, allowing for future prosecution for the same offence. However, Shafee countered by stating that a DNAA is the most appropriate course of action for now and the prosecution can resume the case once they have completed compiling the necessary documents and are fully prepared to proceed with trial. "This case has been ongoing since 2019 and the delay now spans six years. "Documents related to the first SRC case have already been circulated across various courts, including the Federal Court and in civil proceedings. "The defence is proposing a DNAA to avoid overburdening the courts with documents and to give the prosecution time to prepare its case without prejudice. "The accused should not be left waiting indefinitely for trial dates to be set. Justice demands clarity and certainty for both sides," he said before judge K. Muniandy today. Earlier, Mohd Ashrof told the court that 807 exhibits had been tendered during the earlier SRC trial in the High Court, and many of them would be required in the money laundering case. He said the prosecution would file a formal application to retrieve the documents from the High Court Registrar's Office, as they are currently under court custody. "Retrieving the exhibits may take time, so we are seeking a later trial date to allow for document compilation and the preparation of witness statements. "These documents are not readily accessible. The last time the prosecution had access to them was during the 2020 SRC trial, and we are unsure of their current whereabouts. "While we are not ready to proceed immediately, we are committed to moving forward with the trial. The delay in retrieving documents alone does not justify a DNAA," he said. The court then fixed June 20 to decide whether to grant a DNAA or to set trial dates. On Feb 3, 2019, Najib claimed trial to three charges of money laundering involving RM27 million, allegedly received through his three AmPrivate Banking accounts at AmIslamic Bank Berhad, AmBank Group Building, Jalan Raja Chulan, on July 8, 2014. He was charged under Section 4(1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001, which carries a maximum fine of RM5 million, up to five years' imprisonment, or both upon conviction. The former Umno president is currently serving a jail term in Kajang Prison for misappropriating RM42 million in SRC International funds. On Sept 2, 2022, he filed a petition for a royal pardon. On Jan 29 this year, the Pardons Board halved his jail sentence from 12 to six years and reduced his fine from RM210 million to RM50 million.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Court to rule Aug 19 on activist's challenge to CMA provision
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. Heidy Quah Gaik Li, the founder of Refuge for Refugees is claiming the use of the words 'offensive' and annoy' in Section 233 of the Act are invalid as it goes against two fundamental human rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with 'intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. In Sept 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, leading her to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The hearing today was a continuation of proceedings that had begun earlier. Justice Lee was serving as a Court of Appeal judge before being elevated to the Federal Court in May this year. During today's hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin representing the Malaysian government submitted that speech involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech or incitement to violence are not expressions protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He argued that the right to free speech should be used to disseminate truth, respect for human dignity and perform essential informing function. On the other hand, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing Quah argued the words 'offensive' or annoy contained in Section 233 is inconsistent with Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, namely the right to equality and freedom of speech. He argued that the two words in Section 233 are not a 'permissible restriction' under public order as prescribed in the Federal Constitution. In July 2021, Quah, 31, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making 'offensive' online comments in a Facebook post. In April the following year, the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) due to the charge under section 233(1)(a) being defective.
