Wednesday 2 October 2013

Amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 are Repugnant to the Rule of Law - No to Preventive Detention Without Trial

Amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 are Repugnant to the Rule of Law - 
No to Preventive Detention Without Trial

Joint Press Statement of The Malaysian Bar, Sabah Law Association and Advocates Association of Sarawak



The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates Association of Sarawak are appalled by the numerous proposed amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (“PCA”) and 10 other legislations, including proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act 1950.

The proposed amendments to the PCA are objectionable and repugnant to the rule of law. The amendment to the preamble of the PCA which recites Article 149 of the Federal Constitution is revealing in that it does not merely amend the PCA but it effectively re-introduces the Internal Security Act 1960 and the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969. These amendments violate the rule of law and ignore due process and infringe upon our constitutional rights.

Despite assurances by certain quarters of the government that laws similar to the repealed Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 and the Internal Security Act 1960 would not be resurrected, the government is now seeking to re-introduce via the Prevention of Crime (Amendment and Extension) Bill No. 8 of 2013 the most offensive elements of these repealed legislations.

The proposed amendments to the PCA seek to revive preventive detention without trial, repeated renewals of such detention without trial, oust the jurisdiction of the judiciary, deny the rights of suspected persons to due process of the law, such as the right to legal representation and the right to be heard before any adverse decision or direction is made.

The amendments provide that a suspected person does not have a right to legal representation during an inquiry to determine whether the person is a member of a registrable category under the PCA and therefore liable to supervisory or preventive detention orders. The suspected person is not provided with the grounds for any adverse findings, and does not have the right to appeal or apply for review to the courts against any adverse findings or a supervision order.

The amendments are an affront to the judiciary. The judicial review powers of the judiciary have been removed by s.15A in respect of any act done, finding or decision made by the Prevention of Crime Board (“Board”) under the PCA, except in regard to any question on compliance with any procedure required in the PCA. This limited concession is meaningless as the amendments go on to provide that the Board shall set its own procedures as it wishes. The discretionary sentencing power of the judiciary to order a discharge with a caution or a binding over for good behavior has also been removed by the proposed s.15(6) of the PCA.

The proposed amendments appear to provide for safeguards with regard to preventive detention orders, namely:-

(a) The amendments provide for the establishment of the Board. The Board is vested with the power to order preventive detention without trial of up to 2 years and any renewals thereof, instead of the Minister; and

(b) The amendment under s.19A(2) also provide for a right to apply for review to the High Court against the direction of the Board for preventive detention and any renewals thereof.

These safeguards are insufficient or illusory.

The Board has limited utility as it does not have power to inquire into or re-examine the accuracy, sufficiency and veracity of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the grounds for the findings. The Inquiry Officer is appointed by the Minister and has sole conduct of any inquiries under the PCA. The Board is effectively bound by the findings and the grounds of the Inquiry Officer in exercising its discretion as to whether to release the suspect, or issue a supervision order or direct a preventive detention.

The idea for this Board is clearly borrowed from the Internal Security Act 1960 which had provided for an Advisory Board. History has shown us that this did not in any way prevent rampant abuse and unjustified detention without trial.

Although the amendments under s.19A(2) provide for a right of review by the High Court of any preventive detention orders or renewals of such detentions, the right of review is rendered illusory as the grounds or reasons for the Inquiry Officer’s findings and the Board’s decision are not provided to the suspected person, and the Inquiry Officer and the Board may refuse to provide any information and documents to the court and the suspected person on the basis that it would be against the public interest to do so.

The proposed s.7C(a)(i) of the PCA is alarming and abhorrent. It provides that a criterion which the Board shall apply in deciding to issue a preventive detention order is that the person has committed two or more serious offences, whether or not that person has been convicted of the offences, if the inquiry report finds sufficient evidence to support such finding.

This means that the Inquiry Officer has taken on the role not merely as an investigator or inquirer but that of prosecutor and judge. The Inquiry Officer would have found the suspect guilty of two or more serious criminal offences without charging the person and securing a conviction in court, and with the suspect having been denied legal representation in the course of the inquiry save when the suspect’s own evidence was taken. This is an unacceptable abrogation of due process and the supplanting of the judiciary.

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates Association of Sarawak reject any attempt to resurrect preventive detention without trial, repeated renewals of such detention without trial, the ouster of the jurisdiction of the judiciary, denial of the rights of suspected persons to due process of the law, such as the right to legal representation and the right to be heard before any adverse decision or direction is made. The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates Association of Sarawak call upon the government to withdraw all proposed amendments of this nature, in particular, the proposed Part IVA of the PCA.

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates Association of Sarawak are of the view that the answer to the fight against crime cannot lie in re-introducing laws that diminish our adherence to the rule of law, due process and constitutional safeguards. The proposed draconian amendments are not a reflection of the state of crime in our country. Rather it speaks of the inadequacies and inability of the police to deal with crime in a proper way.

It is imperative that the government immediately implements the recommendation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry 2005 chaired by Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Bin Hj Abdullah and establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission to redress standards of policing and restore public confidence in the police.

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates Association of Sarawak are extremely disappointed by the manner in which these proposed amendments are sought to be introduced. There was no prior notice or consultation on the numerous amendments to 11 legislations with far reaching consequences. These amendments must not be bulldozed through Parliament.

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates Association of Sarawak call upon the government to withdraw all of the proposed amendments and to engage in genuine consultation with all interested stakeholders and parties. The proposed forum on 28 September 2013, which was originally intended to discuss the prevention of crime generally and which now belatedly appears to have been converted to a public feedback session on the proposed amendments to the PCA and the 10 other legislations, is rushed, contrived and insufficient.


27 September 2013

Christopher Leong
President
Malaysian Bar

Datuk GBB Nandy @ Gaanesh
President
Sabah Law Association

Khairil Azmi bin Mohd Hasbie
President
Advocates Association of Sarawak

0 comments:

通告 Notification




工委会议决:将徐袖珉除名

人民之友工委会2020年9月27日常月会议针对徐袖珉(英文名: See Siew Min)半年多以来胡闹的问题,议决如下:

鉴于徐袖珉长期以来顽固推行她的“颜色革命”理念和“舔美仇华”思想,蓄意扰乱人民之友一贯以来的“反对霸权主义,反对种族主义”政治立场,阴谋分化甚至瓦解人民之友推动真正民主改革的思想阵地,人民之友工委会经过长时间的考察和验证,在2020年9月27日会议议决;为了明确人民之友创立以来的政治立场以及贯彻人民之友现阶段以及今后的政治主张,必须将徐袖珉从工委会名单上除名,并在人民之友部落格发出通告,以绝后患。

2020年9月27日发布



[ 漫画新解 ]
新冠病毒疫情下的马来西亚
舔美精神患者的状态

年轻一辈人民之友有感而作


注:这“漫画新解”是反映一名自诩“智慧高人一等”而且“精于民主理论”的老姐又再突发奇想地运用她所学会的一丁点“颜色革命”理论和伎俩来征服人民之友队伍里的学弟学妹们的心理状态——她在10多年前曾在队伍里因时时表现自己是超群精英,事事都要别人服从她的意愿而人人“惊而远之”,她因此而被挤出队伍近10年之久。

她在三年前被一名年长工委推介,重新加入人民之友队伍。可是,就在今年年初她又再故态复萌,尤其是在3月以来,不断利用部落格的贴文,任意扭曲而胡说八道。起初,还以“不同意见者”的姿态出现,以博取一些不明就里的队友对她的同情和支持,后来,她发现了她的欺骗伎俩无法得逞之后,索性撤下了假面具,对人民之友一贯的“反对霸权主义、反对种族主义”的政治立场,发出歇斯底里的叫嚣,而暴露她设想人民之友“改旗易帜”的真面目!

尤其是在新冠病毒疫情(COVID-19)课题上,她公然猖狂跟人民之友的政治立场对着干,指责人民之友服务于中国文宣或大中华,是 “中国海外统治部”、“中华小红卫兵”等等等等。她甚至通过强硬粗暴手段擅自把我们的WhatsApp群组名称“Sahabat Rakyat Malaysia”改为“吐槽美国样衰俱乐部”这样的无耻行动也做得出来。她的这种种露骨的表现足以说明了她是一名赤裸裸的“反中仇华”份子。

其实,在我们年轻队友看来,这名嘲讽我们“浪费了20年青春”[人民之友成立至今近20年(2001-9-9迄今)]并想要“拯救我们年轻工委”的这位“徐大姐”,她的思想依然停留在20年前的上个世纪。她初始或许是不自觉接受了“西方民主”和“颜色革命”思想的培养,而如今却是自觉地为维护美国的全球霸权统治而与反对美国霸权支配全球的中国人民和全世界各国(包括马来西亚)人民为敌。她是那么狂妄自大,却是多么幼稚可笑啊!

她所说的“你们浪费了20年青春”正好送回给她和她的跟班,让他们把她的这句话吞到自己的肚子里去!


[ 漫画新解 ]
新冠病毒疫情下的马来西亚
"公知"及其跟班的精神面貌

注:这“漫画新解”是与<人民之友>4月24日转贴的美国政客叫嚣“围剿中国”煽动颠覆各国民间和组织 >(原标题为<当心!爱国队伍里混进了这些奸细……>)这篇文章有关联的。这篇文章作者沈逸所说的“已被欧美政治认同洗脑的‘精神欧美人’”正是马来西亚“公知”及其跟班的精神面貌的另一种写照!




[ 漫画新解 ]
新冠病毒疫情下的马来西亚
"舔美"狗狗的角色

编辑 / 来源:人民之友 / 网络图库

注:这“漫画新解”是与《察网》4月22日刊林爱玥专栏文章<公知与鲁迅之间 隔着整整一个中国 >这篇文章有关联的,这是由于这篇文章所述说的中国公知,很明显是跟这组漫画所描绘的马来西亚的“舔美”狗狗,有着孪生兄弟姐妹的亲密关系。

欲知其中详情,敬请点击、阅读上述文章内容,再理解、品味以下漫画的含义。这篇文章和漫画贴出后,引起激烈反响,有人竟然对号入座,暴跳如雷且发出恐吓,众多读者纷纷叫好且鼓励加油。编辑部特此接受一名网友建议:在显著的布告栏内贴出,方便网友搜索、浏览,以扩大宣传教育效果。谢谢关注!谢谢鼓励!












Malaysia Time (GMT+8)

面书分享 FB SHARE