Will The Poor Get Justice From The Courts? Lessons from the Ladang Bukit Jelutong workers' experience Kuala Lumpur, 19 July 2003
Please support our work by buying a copy of our print publication, Aliran Monthly, from your nearest news-stand. Better still take out a subscription now.
The workers of Ladang Bukit Jelutong Rasak were served with a summons from their former employer, Guthrie, who wanted to evict them and get vacant possession of the land they have been occupying for many years now. The workers then looked for a lawyer. Someone suggested to them a lawyer who was supposed to be actively involved in social movement. It appears that the lawyer did not file for appearances, but according to the lawyer, he was not furnished with the sealed copy, and therefore he did not file for appearances. Anyway the workers did not know what any of this meant. All they knew was that they had a lawyer and the lawyer ought to know what to do. They were also told that they had a case coming up on 27 June 2002. On 26 June, a notice was suddenly given to each home and within an hour their homes were all demolished. It appears that Guthrie through their lawyer had obtained a default judgement on 6 June 2002. The order was not served on the people earlier or served on their lawyers. And it was written clearly on the notice that they had been served with that if they did not give up vacant possession within two weeks of the notice, then committal proceedings could be obtained against the people. But in this case, there was no two weeks� grace period; within an hour, all their homes were cruelly destroyed. The estate owners blamed it on the workers� lawyer whereas the lawyer termed the operation illegal. At least for Saddam, the US gave him 48 hours to leave; but for the workers, their homes were demolished within an hour. A week later, the workers went to the KL High Court to seek an injunction. But the High Court judge told them the matter was now academic as their homes had already been demolished and told them to file for damages. It was so easy for the High Court Judge to say that it was academic. As for Guthrie and their lawyers, Skrine & Co, they abused the default judgment and, used the police and the Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam (MBSA), to conduct an illegal demolition and made the families homeless. Since the workers had nowhere to go to and since the demolition that was conducted was illegal, the 28 former workers from Ladang Bukit Jelutong Rasak rebuilt their homes. They had no choice: if they had left the land, they would have been forgotten. But Guthrie did not give them a choice. The rebuilt homes were demolished three times on 26 August 2002, 26 September 2002 and 4 March 2003. On each of these occasions, dozens of people were arrested. Each demolition was illegal but it was supported by the police and the MBSA. On each occasion, Guthrie used the same default judgment they had obtained on 6 June 2002 to demolish the workers� homes even though the process was not correct. Then, one day, another lawyer came by and said that they should set aside the default judgement because that was the cause of their problem. So the people got a second lawyer after discharging their first lawyer. This lawyer was much more committed and very much sympathetic to their plight. He filed the case to set aside the default judgment. The case was mentioned twice and postponed. The next hearing date was scheduled for 7 August 2003.
Our case was dismissed and we were asked then why we didn�t appeal against that case. Feeling desperate, the workers filed an appeal in the Appeals Court two days later on 13 June 2003 to hear the injunction application. While waiting for this matter to be heard, the people filed for a stay at the Appeals Court. The Interim Stay was filed on Monday, 16 June. The Chief Justice directly intervened and instructed that the case be heard interparte the next day, 17 June 2003, before a panel of three Appeals Court judges. On 17 June 2003, the Appeals Court was full of former workers from Ladang Bukit Jelutong. But sadly, the three judges who heard the case had this to say, among other things: �Does the land belong to the workers?�, �Who asked them to rebuild their homes�do they have permission from Guthrie?�, �..even we judges have to vacate our Government Quarters after retiring�, � Why are you talking about state government policies, this is not a political forum.� The judges never asked about the plight of the estate workers, never questioned the illegal demolition and never talked about shelter, suffering and poverty. What the people wanted was just a � stay order� so their homes could be safe until the case proper is heard. The next day, the three judges unanimously rejected the workers� application for a stay with costs. This meant that Guthrie could demolish all their houses before their appeal on the injunction could be heard. After the homes had been demolished, the Injunction case at the Appeals Court would become academic because there would be no homes to protect anymore. The setting aside of the default judgement would also became academic as there would be no case. Now, we are told that we have one final hope: to seek a stay from the Federal Court. Should we exhaust this final option? Will we get justice from the Federal Court? Will the court ever see the plight of the poor? Or will it be the people and the people alone who can execute an injunction and a stay? What, dear reader, do you think? Now e-mail us and tell us what you think. | ||||||||||||||||||
The judges never asked about the plight of the estate workers, never questioned the illegal demolition and never talked about shelter, suffering and poverty.
