Monday, September 28, 2015

OPPRESSIVE LAWS: Repeal SOSMA & offences criminalizing activities ‘detrimental' democracy’ - MADPET (Malaysia Chronicle)

28 September 2015 11:01(Malaysia Chronicle)

OPPRESSIVE LAWS: Repeal SOSMA & offences criminalizing activities ‘detrimental' democracy’ - MADPET



MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is shocked by the actions taken by the Malaysian police against Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan for allegedly lodging reports with relevant authorities in other countries against 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a private company owned by Malaysia.

Khairuddin was first arrested and remanded for investigation on 18/9/2015 under section 124C of the Penal Code, being the offence of ‘attempts to commit an activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy or does any act preparatory thereto shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fifteen years’. This is one of the new offences included into the Penal Code, which came into effect on 31/7/2012. It is too vague since there seems to be not even a definition as to what really would be an ‘activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy’, and as such could very be easily abused.

On 23/9/2015, when the courts released him after possibly denying the police application for further remand, Khairruddin was immediately re-arrested for allegedly committing offences under Section 124K and 124L of the Penal Code. This would be the offence of committing ‘sabotage’ and attempting to do so respectively.

Normally, when a person is arrested, being suspected of committing a criminal offence, the procedures and rights that are provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code applies. The police after arrest, can hold a suspect for no longer than 24 hours, and thereafter, if there is a need for further remand for the purposes of investigation, the police need to apply to the Magistrate for a remand order. Subsequent remand applications are permitted, whereby the total period of permissible detention for this purpose is 14 days. The Malaysian law now also sets limits on the maximum number of days of remand that can be granted by court on the first application, and applications thereafter.

Following the 2nd arrest of Khairuddin, the police allegedly stated that they would now rely on the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA), rather than the normal Criminal Procedure Code(CPC).

Avoiding normal procedures, safeguards and rights by invoking SOSMA


SOSMA is a law that provides for ‘special measures relating to security offences for the purpose of maintaining public order and security and for connected matters’. There are ‘special measures’ from the point of arrest until the end of trial, which do undermine the rights of the suspect and/or accused, including the right to a fair trial.

When SOSMA is used, the police no longer need to get a Magistrate’s order for the purposes of remanding a suspect for more than 24 hours. All that is required by SOSMA for detention beyond 24 hours is that ‘a police officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police…’ to ‘…extend the period of detention for a period of not more than twenty-eight days, for the purpose of investigation’. As such, the necessary check and balance provided by the Magistrate and the courts to ensure that the police do not abuse their powers and/or unjustifiably deny a suspect his freedom is gone.

SOSMA also provides that no bail will be granted for persons charged with security offences, save for very limited exceptions. SOSMA also allows the court to accept evidence of witnesses, in the absence of the accused person and his lawyer. In essence, SOSMA allows for the abandonment of many of the fundamental requirements, safeguards and rights necessary to ensure a fair trial.

Was there new evidence after release to justify immediate re-arrest?


Unless new evidence has come to light since the release, an immediate re-arrest of a suspect would be wrong. Eventhough, Khairuddin’s re-arrest may be for a different offence, which happens to be under the same Part of the Penal Code, which most probably are based on the same facts would also be wrong. The police could have very well during his 5 days in detention investigated him concerning all related offences – there is no need for a re-arrest and further detention. Furthermore, considering that he was released by court, the action of police seems to be an act of disrespecting the court. Now, using SOSMA in this re-arrest, the police shuts out the court’s ability to ensure that the police are not abusing their powers of remand.

It must be stressed that after a suspect is arrested, there is always the option to release the suspect on police bail on condition that he presents at the police station as and when needed to facilitate investigations. There is no necessity to continue to hold a suspect in detention for the purposes of investigation.

If the prosecution has sufficient evidence, rightly the person should be charged in court, and any application for bail could be challenged. Even if released on bail, the courts could order that the accused not leave the country.

Punishment Comes After Conviction – Presumption of Innocence


MADPET reiterates the importance of adhering to legal principle that a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and this ‘proof of guilt’ is not a matter to be determined by the police, prosecution and/or the Minister, but by a court of law.

As such, prolonged remand for the purposes of investigation, or re-arresting, be in for the same or different offences, and further remands could be seen as a violation of the presumption of innocence principle. Punishment comes only after conviction and sentencing by a court of law, and not before.

Duty to report suspected crimes in any country?

Every human person has an obligation to highlight any alleged wrongdoing, crime, injustice or human rights violation – they are not expected to be indifferent or to turn a blind eye to the occurrence of suspected wrongdoings.

Whether the allegation is true or not, or even whether there is evidence to support it or not, it is not the concern of the person lodging reports. That will be a matter for the relevant investigation authorities to investigate and determine.

There is also no law in Malaysia that says that a Malaysian can only file reports/complaints about wrongdoings by Malaysians or Malaysian companies in Malaysia, and to file any such reports/complaints in any other country is a crime.

Deterring lodging of complaints against ‘powerful’ persons and companies?


Hence, MADPET, from information provided thus far in media reports, fails to see how what Khairuddin is alleged of doing, being the filing of reports with authorities in other countries, could even be perceived as a crime. Note that the relevant authority in any country will only commence investigation if and only if the subject matter is a violation of their applicable laws, and it is a matter that falls within their jurisdiction.

Malaysia need to be very concerned that its actions now may only deter Malaysians from lodging reports/complaints about suspected crimes or wrongdoings against ‘powerful’ personalities and companies. No one is above the law.

MADPET thus calls for:-

The immediate release of Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan;

The immediate stop of the usage of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) in this and all other cases in Malaysia;

The repeal of this draconian Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA); and also

The removal of all offences in our laws that criminalizes activities ‘detrimental to parliamentary democracy’, which is just too vague and as such could be easily abused.

Charles Hector
For and on behalf of
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Source: Malaysia Chronicle. 28/9/2015

Repeal Sosma, offences’ detrimental to parliamentary democracy’ – MADPET [Malaysian Insider]

Repeal Sosma, offences’ detrimental to parliamentary democracy’ – MADPET


MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is shocked by the actions taken by the Malaysian police against Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan for allegedly lodging reports with relevant authorities in other countries against 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a private company owned by Malaysia.
 
Khairuddin was first arrested and remanded for investigation on September 18, 2015, under section 124C of the Penal Code, being the offence of ‘attempts to commit an activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy or does any act preparatory there to shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fifteen years’.

This is one of the new offences included into the Penal Code, which came into effect on August 31, 2012.

It is too vague since there seems to be not even a definition as to what really would be an ‘activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy’, and as such could very be easily abused. 
 
On September 23, 2015, when the courts released him after possibly denying the police application for further remand, Khairruddin was immediately re-arrested for allegedly committing offences under Section 124K and 124L of the Penal Code.

This would be the offence of committing ‘sabotage’ and attempting to do so respectively.

Normally, when a person is arrested, being suspected of committing a criminal offence, the procedures and rights that are provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code applies.

The police after arrest, can hold a suspect for no longer than 24 hours, and thereafter, if there is a need for further remand for the purposes of investigation, the police need to apply to the Magistrate for a remand order.

Subsequent remand applications are permitted, whereby the total period of permissible detention for this purpose is 14 days. The Malaysian law now also sets limits on the maximum number of days of remand that can be granted by court on the first application, and applications thereafter.

Following the second arrest of Khairuddin, the police allegedly stated that they would now rely on the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), rather than the normal Criminal Procedure Code(CPC).

Avoiding normal procedures, safeguards and rights by invoking Sosma
 
Sosma is a law that provides for ‘special measures relating to security offences for the purpose of maintaining public order and security and for connected matters’.

There are ‘special measures’ from the point of arrest until the end of trial, which do undermine the rights of the suspect and/or accused, including the right to a fair trial.

When Sosma is used, the police no longer need to get a Magistrate’s order for the purposes of remanding a suspect for more than 24 hours.

All that is required by Sosma for detention beyond 24 hours is that ‘a police officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police…’ to ‘…extend the period of detention for a period of not more than twenty-eight days, for the purpose of investigation’.

As such, the necessary check and balance provided by the Magistrate and the courts to ensure that the police do not abuse their powers and/or unjustifiably deny a suspect his freedom is gone.

Sosma also provides that no bail will be granted for persons charged with security offences, save for very limited exceptions. Sosma also allows the court to accept evidence of witnesses, in the absence of the accused person and his lawyer.

In essence, Sosma allows for the abandonment of many of the fundamental requirements, safeguards and rights necessary to ensure a fair trial.

Was there new evidence after release to justify immediate re-arrest?
 
Unless new evidence has come to light since the release, an immediate re-arrest of a suspect would be wrong.

Even though, Khairuddin’s re-arrest may be for a different offence, which happens to be under the same Part of the Penal Code, which most probably are based on the same facts would also be wrong.

The police could have very well during his 5 days in detention investigated him concerning all related offences – there is no need for a re-arrest and further detention.

Furthermore, considering that he was released by court, the action of police seems to be an act of disrespecting the court.

Now, using Sosma in this re-arrest, the police shuts out the court’s ability to ensure that the police are not abusing their powers of remand. It must be stressed that after a suspect is arrested, there is always the option to release the suspect on police bail on condition that he presents at the police station as and when needed to facilitate investigations.

There is no necessity to continue to hold a suspect in detention for the purposes of investigation. If the prosecution has sufficient evidence, rightly the person should be charged in court, and any application for bail could be challenged.

Even if released on bail, the courts could order that the accused not leave the country.

Punishment after conviction – Presumption of innocence
 
MADPET reiterates the importance of adhering to legal principle that a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and this ‘proof of guilt’ is not a matter to be determined by the police, prosecution and/or the Minister, but by  a court of law.

As such, prolonged remand for the purposes of investigation, or re-arresting, be in for the same or different offences, and further remands could be seen as a violation of the presumption of innocence principle.

Punishment comes only after conviction and sentencing by a court of law, and not before.

Duty to report suspected crimes in any country?
 
Every human person has an obligation to highlight any alleged wrongdoing, crime, injustice or human rights violation – they are not expected to be indifferent or to turn a blind eye to the occurrence of suspected wrongdoings.

Whether the allegation is true or not, or even whether there is evidence to support it or not, it is not the concern of the person lodging reports. That will be a matter for the relevant investigation authorities to investigate and determine.

There is also no law in Malaysia that says that a Malaysian can only file reports/complaints about wrongdoings by Malaysians or Malaysian companies in Malaysia, and to file any such reports/complaints in any other country is a crime.

Deterring lodging of complaints against ‘powerful’ persons and companies?

Hence, MADPET, from information provided thus far in media reports, fails to see how what Khairuddin is alleged of doing, being the filing of reports with authorities in other countries, could even be perceived as a crime.

Note that the relevant authority in any country will only commence investigation if and only if the subject matter is a violation of their applicable laws, and it is a matter that falls within their jurisdiction.

Malaysia needs to be very concerned that its actions now may only deter Malaysians from lodging reports/complaints about suspected crimes or wrongdoings against ‘powerful’ personalities and companies.
 
No one is above the law.

MADPET thus calls for:

a) The immediate release of Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan;
 
b) The immediate stop of the usage of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) in this and all other cases in Malaysia;
 
c) The repeal of this draconian Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma); and also
 
d) The removal of all offences in our laws that criminalizes activities ‘detrimental to parliamentary democracy’, which is just too vague and as such could be easily abused. – September 28, 2015. Malaysian Insider
 
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
 
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/repeal-sosma-offences-detrimental-to-parliamentary-democracy-madpet#sthash.ea3FHFPd.dpuf

Sunday, September 27, 2015

MADPET Calls For Repeal Of SOSMA, And Offences Criminalizing Activities ‘Detrimental To Parliamentary Democracy’

Media Statement – 28/9/2015

MADPET Calls For Repeal Of SOSMA, And Offences Criminalizing Activities ‘Detrimental To Parliamentary Democracy’ 

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is shocked by the actions taken by the Malaysian police against Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan for allegedly lodging reports with relevant authorities in other countries against 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a private company owned by Malaysia.

Khairuddin was first arrested and remanded for investigation on 18/9/2015 under section 124C of the Penal Code, being the offence of ‘attempts to commit an activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy or does any act preparatory thereto shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fifteen years’. This is one of the new offences included into the Penal Code, which came into effect on 31/7/2012. It is too vague since there seems to be not even a definition as to what really would be an ‘activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy’, and as such could very be easily abused.


On 23/9/2015, when the courts released him after possibly denying the police application for further remand, Khairruddin was immediately re-arrested for allegedly committing offences under Section 124K and 124L of the Penal Code. This would be the offence of committing ‘sabotage’ and attempting to do so respectively. 


Normally, when a person is arrested, being suspected of committing a criminal offence, the procedures and rights that are provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code applies. The police after arrest, can hold a suspect for no longer than 24 hours, and thereafter, if there is a need for further remand for the purposes of investigation, the police need to apply to the Magistrate for a remand order. Subsequent remand applications are permitted, whereby the total period of permissible detention for this purpose is 14 days. The Malaysian law now also sets limits on the maximum number of days of remand that can be granted by court on the first application, and applications thereafter.


Following the 2nd arrest of Khairuddin, the police allegedly stated that they would now rely on the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA), rather than the normal Criminal Procedure Code(CPC). 


Avoiding normal procedures, safeguards and rights by invoking SOSMA

SOSMA is a law that provides for ‘special measures relating to security offences for the purpose of maintaining public order and security and for connected matters’.  There are ‘special measures’ from the point of arrest until the end of trial, which do undermine the rights of the suspect and/or accused, including the right to a fair trial.

When SOSMA is used, the police no longer need to get a Magistrate’s order for the purposes of remanding a suspect for more than 24 hours. All that is required by SOSMA for detention beyond 24 hours is that ‘a police officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police…’ to ‘…extend the period of detention for a period of not more than twenty-eight days, for the purpose of investigation’. As such, the necessary check and balance provided by the Magistrate and the courts to ensure that the police do not abuse their powers and/or unjustifiably deny a suspect his freedom is gone. 

SOSMA also provides that no bail will be granted for persons charged with security offences, save for very limited exceptions. SOSMA also allows the court to accept evidence of witnesses, in the absence of the accused person and his lawyer. In essence, SOSMA allows for the abandonment of many of the fundamental requirements, safeguards and rights necessary to ensure a fair trial.

Was there new evidence after release to justify immediate re-arrest?

Unless new evidence has come to light since the release, an immediate re-arrest of a suspect would be wrong. Eventhough, Khairuddin’s re-arrest may be for a different offence, which happens to be under the same Part of the Penal Code, which most probably are based on the same facts would also be wrong. The police could have very well during his 5 days in detention investigated him concerning all related offences – there is no need for a re-arrest and further detention. Furthermore, considering that he was released by court, the action of police seems to be an act of disrespecting the court. Now, using SOSMA in this re-arrest, the police shuts out the court’s ability to ensure that the police are not abusing their powers of remand. 

It must be stressed that after a suspect is arrested, there is always the option to release the suspect on police bail on condition that he presents at the police station as and when needed to facilitate investigations. There is no necessity to continue to hold a suspect in detention for the purposes of investigation. 

If the prosecution has sufficient evidence, rightly the person should be charged in court, and any application for bail could be challenged. Even if released on bail, the courts could order that the accused not leave the country.

Punishment Comes After Conviction – Presumption of Innocence

MADPET reiterates the importance of adhering to legal principle that a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and this ‘proof of guilt’ is not a matter to be determined by the police, prosecution and/or the Minister, but by  a court of law. 
As such, prolonged remand for the purposes of investigation, or re-arresting, be in for the same or different offences, and further remands could be seen as a violation of the presumption of innocence principle. Punishment comes only after conviction and sentencing by a court of law, and not before

Duty to report suspected crimes in any country?

Every human person has an obligation to highlight any alleged wrongdoing, crime, injustice or human rights violation – they are not expected to be indifferent or to turn a blind eye to the occurrence of suspected wrongdoings. 

Whether the allegation is true or not, or even whether there is evidence to support it or not, it is not the concern of the person lodging reports. That will be a matter for the relevant investigation authorities to investigate and determine. 

There is also no law in Malaysia that says that a Malaysian can only file reports/complaints about wrongdoings by Malaysians or Malaysian companies in Malaysia, and to file any such reports/complaints in any other country is a crime. 

Deterring lodging of complaints against ‘powerful’ persons and companies? 

Hence, MADPET, from information provided thus far in media reports, fails to see how what Khairuddin is alleged of doing, being the filing of reports with authorities in other countries, could even be perceived as a crime.  Note that the relevant authority in any country will only commence investigation if and only if the subject matter is a violation of their applicable laws, and it is a matter that falls within their jurisdiction.  

Malaysia need to be very concerned that its actions now may only deter Malaysians from lodging reports/complaints about suspected crimes or wrongdoings against ‘powerful’ personalities and companies. No one is above the law.

MADPET thus calls for:-

a)      The immediate release of Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan; 

b)      The immediate stop of the usage of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) in this and all other cases in Malaysia;  

c)       The repeal of this draconian Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA); and also

d)      The removal of all offences in our laws that criminalizes activities ‘detrimental to parliamentary democracy’, which is just too vague and as such could be easily abused.


Charles Hector
For and on behalf of
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Stop abusing Sosma, release Khairuddin – Hakam

Stop abusing Sosma, release Khairuddin – Hakam

On September 24, 2015, former Umno leader Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan was arrested under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma). Khairuddin was arrested allegedly over reports which were lodged with investigators abroad against 1Malaysia Development Berhad. He was first arrested and remanded on 18 September 2015 under section 124C of the Penal Code, on alleged activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy. Upon his release, he was rearrested under Sosma.

Khairuddin is now detained for investigations under Sections 124K and 124L of the Penal Code, allegedly for offences of “sabotage” or “attempting to sabotage the State”.

Hakam stands with the Bar Council and many other civil society organisations and all right thinking Malaysians in condemning these actions as being oppressive and contrary to the rule of law.  Sosma is in itself an authoritarian and oppressive piece of legislation that is now being abused to protect a prime minister (who ought to be accountable to the people) from scrutiny. In stark contrast a member of the public who threatens a riot in Petaling Street is treated with kid gloves and faces no police action.  This underscores the gross abuse of power and the political nature of these enforcement actions.
 
Sosma is meant for security offences that are “prejudicial to public order in, or the security of the Federation or any part thereof”. How are Datuk Khairuddin’s actions in filing reports overseas in respect of 1MDB, prejudicial to the security of the nation?  They may make some people uncomfortable but that is no basis for an arrest. Moreover, Khairuddin will be clearly exempt under Section 4(3) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 [Sosma] which states “No person shall be arrested and detained under this section solely for his political belief or political activity.” Political belief or activity is defined under Section 4(12) paragraphs (b) and (c) respectively as, “the expression of an opinion directed towards any Government in the Federation” and “the pursuit of a course of action directed towards any Government in the Federation.”  In our view therefore the arrest of Khairuddin is unlawful even within the scope of Sosma.
 
This incident is one in a series of arbitrary measures taken by the powers that be to protect the prime minister from having to answer to the people.
 
Enforcement agencies must decide if their role is to serve the public or to protect leaders from answering for their deeds or misdeeds.  The choice is clear. Khairuddin must be immediately released and human rights abuses by the authorities must stop.  Let some semblance of sanity, fair play and respect for the rule of law return immediately to the administration of this nation.
 
We now read reports that Khairuddin was rushed to hospital with a high fever. However, no one is allowed access to him. Hakam urges the authorities to allow the family immediate access to him. We reiterate our demand that he be released immediately. – September 25, 2015.

* Hakam is the acronym of Persatuan Kebangsaan Hak Asasi Manusia or the National Human Rights Society.
  * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider. 
 
KENYATAAN BERTARIKH 25 SEPTEMBER 2015
 
PENGUNAAN SOSMA & PENANGKAPAN KRITIK 1MDB Termasuk ADDENDUM BERTARIKH 26 SEPTEMBER 2016 *
The Rakyat Post file pic
The Rakyat Post file pic

Pada 24 September 2015 bekas pemimpin UMNO Datuk Khairuddin Abu Hassan telah ditangkap dibawah Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA). Datuk Khairuddin telah ditangkap dipercayai disebabkan oleh laporan-laporan yang telah dibuat olehnya dengan penyiasat-penyiasat di luar negara terhadap 1MDB. Beliau telah ditangkap dan direman dahulu pada 18 September 2015 di bawah Seksyen 124C Kanun Keseksaan kerana didakwa terlibat dalam aktiviti-aktiviti yang menjejaskan demokrasi berparlimen. Selepas beliau dilepaskan beliau telah ditangkap semula dibawah SOSMA.

Datuk Khairuddin kini ditahan untuk siasatan di bawah Seksyen 124K dan Seksyen 124L Kanun Keseksaan, dipercayai untuk kesalahan-kesalahan “sabotaj” atau “percubaan untuk sabotaj negara”.

HAKAM mengambil pendirian yang sama dengan Majlis Peguam dan banyak lagi badan-badan bukan kerajaan lain dan juga semua warga Malaysia yang berfikiran munasabah dalam mengkritik dan mengecam tindakan-tindakan ini sebagai tindakan yang menindas dan bertentangan dengan kedaulatan undang-undang. 

SOSMA merupakan satu akta yang bersifat autoritarian dan menindas dan ia kini digunakan pula untuk melindungi Perdana Menteri (yang sepatutnya bertanggungjawab kepada rakyat) daripada penelitian. Dalam perbandingan yang begitu ketara, individu yang mengugut untuk mengadakan rusuhan di Petaling Street pula dipandang ringan dan tidak berdepan dengan tidakan polis. Ini menyerlahkan lagi penyalahgunaan kuasa dan tindakan-tindakan penguatkuasaan ini yang mempunyai agenda politik.

Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) bertujuan menangani kesalahan-kesalahan sekuriti yang “memudaratkan keselamatan awam di dalam, atau sekuriti Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagian Persekutuan”. 

Persoalannya ialah, bagaimana tindakan-tindakan Datuk Khairuddin iaitu memfailkan laporan-laporan diluar negara berkenaan 1MDB memudaratkan keselamatan awam negara? Laporan-laporan tersebut mungkin telah menyebabkan sesetengah pihak berasa tidak selesa tetapi itu tidak boleh menjadi asas bagi satu penangkapan. 

Tambahan pula, Datuk Khairuddin akan dikecualikan di bawah Seksyen 4(3) Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) yang menyatakan “Tiada seorang pun boleh ditangkap atau ditahan dibawah seksyen ini semata-mata atas kepercayaan politiknya atau aktiviti politiknya”. Kepercayaan politik atau aktiviti politik pula didefinisikan di bawah Seksyen 4(12) perenggan (b) dan (c) masing-masing sebagai “pernyataan pendapat yang ditujukan terhadap mana-mana Kerajaan di dalam Persekutuan” dan “pengambilan tindakan yang ditujukan terhadap mana-mana Kerajaan di dalam Persekutuan”. 

Pada pandangan kami, penangkapan ini adalah tidak sah disisi undang-undang khususnya di sisi SOSMA.

Insiden ini adalah salah satu daripada tindakan bersiri yang bersifat menindas dan diambil secara sewenang-wenangnya oleh pihak yang berkuasa untuk melindungi Perdana Menteri daripada memberi jawapan kepada rakyat.

Agensi-agensi penguatkuasaan harus memilih pendirian mereka samada peranan mereka adalah untuk melindungi rakyat atau untuk melindungi pemimpin-pemimpin daripada bertanggungjawab untuk tindakan-tindakan mereka samada betul atau salah. Pilihan tersebut sepatutnya jelas tanpa sebarang keraguan. Datuk 

Khairuddin patut dibebaskan dengan segera dan sikap pihak berkuasa yang giat mencabul hak asasi manusia dengan sewenang-wenangnya mestilah dihentikan. Biar sedikit kewarasan, keadilan dan pendekatan yang menghormati kedaulatan undang-undang kembali diamalkan dengan segera dalam aturcara pentadbiran negara ini.

HAKAM telah mendapat tahu melalui laporan-laporan media bahawa Datuk Khairuddin telah dikejarkan ke hospital dengan demam tinggi, walaubagaimanapun, beliau tidak dibenarkan sebarang pelawat. HAKAM mengesa pihak berkuasa untuk membenarkan ahli keluarga beliau untuk menjenguk dan melawat beliau. Akses ini harus diberikan dengan segara. HAKAM juga sekali lagi menegaskan bahawa beliau seharusnya dibebaskan dengan serta-merta. *

Dikeluarkan bagi pihak Jawatankuasa Eksekutif HAKAM

Ambiga Sreenevasan Presiden HAKAM

Source:- HAKAM Website - 
 
STATEMENT DATED 25 SEPTEMBER 2015
 
ON THE USE OF SOSMA & ARREST OF 1MDB CRITIC
Incorporating ADDENDUM DATED 26 SEPTEMBER 2015 *
 
Datuk Khairuddin Abu Hassan was rearrested by police this evening under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, September 23, 2015.


On 24 September 2015 former Umno leader Datuk Khairuddin Abu Hassan was arrested under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA). Datuk Khairuddin was arrested allegedly over reports which were lodged with investigators abroad against 1MDB. He was first arrested and remanded on 18 September 2015 under section 124C of the Penal Code, on alleged activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy. Upon his release, he was rearrested under SOSMA.

Datuk Khairuddin is now detained for investigations under Sections 124K and 124L of the Penal Code, allegedly for offences of “sabotage” or “attempting to sabotage the State“.

HAKAM stands with the Bar Council and many other civil society organisations and all right thinking Malaysians in condemning these actions as being oppressive and contrary to the rule of law. SOSMA is in itself an authoritarian and oppressive piece of legislation that is now being abused to protect a Prime Minister (who ought to be accountable to the people) from scrutiny. In stark contrast a member of the public who threatens a riot in Petaling Street is treated with kid gloves and faces no police action. This underscores the gross abuse of power and the political nature of these enforcement actions.


SOSMA is meant for security offences that are “prejudicial to public order in, or the security of the Federation or any part thereof.”. How are Datuk Khairuddin’s actions in filing reports overseas in respect of 1MDB, prejudicial to the security of the nation? They may make some people uncomfortable but that is no basis for an arrest. Moreover, Khairuddin will be clearly exempt under Section 4(3) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 [SOSMA] which states “No person shall be arrested and detained under this section solely for his political belief or political activity.” Political belief or activity is defined under Section 4(12) paragraphs (b) and (c) respectively as, “the expression of an opinion directed towards any Government in the Federation” and “the pursuit of a course of action directed towards any Government in the Federation.” In our view therefore the arrest of Datuk Khairuddin is unlawful even within the scope of SOSMA.

This incident is one in a series of arbitrary measures taken by the powers that be to protect the Prime Minister from having to answer to the people.

Enforcement agencies must decide if their role is to serve the rakyat or to protect leaders from answering for their deeds or misdeeds. The choice is clear. Datuk Khairuddin must be immediately released and human rights abuses by the authorities must stop. Let some semblance of sanity, fair play and respect for the rule of law return immediately to the administration of this nation.

We now read reports that Datuk Khairuddin was rushed to hospital with a high fever. However, no one is allowed access to him. HAKAM urges the authorities to allow the family immediate access to him. We reiterate our demand that he be released immediately.*

Issued on behalf of HAKAM Executive Committee

Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
HAKAM
 
Source:- HAKAM Website