Detention Without Trial in Malaysia - How many now? REPEAL DWT LAWS ...

GRAVE INJUSTICE when they say you are a ‘bad’ person, and detain you without trial – and you do not even have the right to prove that they are wrong. Your right to challenge their reasons for detaining you without trial is taken away by law – and the courts cannot even look at and/or review the decisions of these authorities that detained you, and/or denied you other basic freedoms.

Even though the draconian and infamous Internal Security Act(ISA) was repealed in 2012, Detention Without Trial(DWT) still survived through laws like the Dangerous Drugs(Special Preventive Measures) Act...

Then, there were new laws put in place that brought back Detention Without Trial like the POCA (Prevention of Crime Act) amendments and the POTA(Prevention of Terrorism Act).  

The beauty about these 'Detention Without Trial' laws, is that the authorities can make even baseless allegations and then detain you indefinitely, or place you under 'restrictions' - and you do not have the right to defend yourself. You do not even have the right to go to Court and challenge their reasons for detaining you indefinitely....

POCA  - PREVENTION OF CRIME ACT 1959

Through the amendments of the PREVENTION OF CRIME ACT 1959 (REVISED - 1983), that came into force on 2 April 2014, Detention Without Trial also came into being vide the new section 19A, 

19A. Detention orders

(1) The Board may, after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer submitted under section 10 and the outcome of any review under section 11, direct that any registered person be detained under a detention order for a period not exceeding two years, and may renew any such detention order for a further period not exceeding two years at a time, if it is satisfied that such detention is necessary in the interest of public order, public security or prevention of crime

And, how this could be used against such a broad range of persons... but it really does not matter because the government does not have to prove anything in court, and persons affected have no right to challenge the reasons for the detention and/or restrictions..

FIRST SCHEDULE

REGISTRABLE CATEGORIES

PART I

1. All members of unlawful societies which-

    (i) use Triad ritual; or

    (ii) are constituted or used for purposes involving the commission of offences that are seizable under the law for the time being in force relating to criminal procedure; or

    (iii) maintain secrecy as to their objects.

2. Persons who belong to or consort with any group, body, gang or association of two or more persons who associate for purposes which include the commission of offences under the Penal Code.

3. All traffickers in dangerous drugs, including persons who live wholly or in part on the proceeds of drug trafficking.

4. All traffickers in persons, including persons who live wholly or in part on the proceeds of trafficking in persons

5. All persons concerned in the organisation and promotion of unlawful gaming.

6. All smugglers of migrants, including persons who live wholly or in part on the proceeds of smuggling of migrants.

7. Persons who recruit, or agree to recruit, another person to be a member of an unlawful society or a gang or to participate in the commission of an offence.

8. Persons who engage in the commission or support of terrorist acts under the Penal Code.

POTA  - PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT 2015  (In Force from:  1 September 2015)

Then, we had that infamous POTA - when some Opposition Members of Parliament was absent when it was voted on...

 

Section 13(1), provides for the power to 'detain without trial', and also put someone under a Restriction Order.. 

13  Power to order detention and restriction

(1) Whenever the Board, after considering—

    (a) the complete report of the investigation submitted under subsection 3(4); and

    (b) the report of the Inquiry Officer submitted under section 12,

is satisfied with respect to any person that such person has been or is engaged in the commission or support of terrorist acts involving listed terrorist organizations in a foreign country or any part of a foreign country, the Board may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of the security of Malaysia or any part of Malaysia that such person be detained, by order ("detention order") direct that such person be detained for a period not exceeding two years…

 Section 13(3), provides for the power to place RESTRICTIONs on a person, and also states the kind of restrictions that can be imposed...

...(3) If the Board is satisfied that for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) it is necessary that control and supervision should be exercised over any person or that restrictions and conditions should be imposed upon that person in respect of his activities, freedom of movement or places of residence or employment, but for that purpose it is unnecessary to detain him, the Board may by order ("restriction order") direct that the person named in the order ("restricted person") shall be subject to the supervision of the police for any period not exceeding five years at a time and may impose all or any of the following restrictions and conditions:

    (a) he shall be required to reside within the limits of any State, district, mukim, town or village specified in the order;

    (b) he shall not be permitted to transfer his residence to any other State, district, mukim, town or village, as the case may be, without the written authority of the Board;

    (c) except so far as may be otherwise provided by the order, he shall not leave the State, district, mukim, town or village within which he resides without the written authority of the Chief Police Officer of the State concerned;

    (d) he shall at all times keep the Officer in Charge of the Police District in which he resides notified of the house or place in which he resides;

    (e) he shall be liable, at such time or times as may be specified in the order, to present himself at the nearest police station;

    (f) he shall remain within doors, or within such area as may be defined in the order, between such hours as may be specified in the order, unless he obtains special permission to the contrary from the Officer in Charge of the Police District;

    (g) except so far as may be otherwise provided by the order, he shall not be permitted to enter any State, district, mukim, town or village specified in the order;

    (h) he shall use only equipment and facilities of communication which are declared to and approved by the Chief Police Officer of any State concerned;

    (i) except so far as may be otherwise provided by the order, he shall not access the internet;

    (j) he shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

    (k) he shall enter into a bond, with or without sureties as the Board may direct and in such amount as may be specified in the order, for his due compliance with the restrictions and conditions imposed on him by the order;

    (l) he shall be attached with an electronic monitoring device.

And, the length of the DETENTION ORDERS and RESTRICTION ORDERS can be indefinite ... remember, this is not sentences of a court of law, after the charges have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair and open trial. Here is 'punishment' without the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial... and with no right to challenge the reasons for detention...

17  Board's power to extend detention order, restriction order or suspended detention order

(1) The Board may at any time before the expiration of the duration of—

    (a) a detention order made under subsection 13(1);

    (b) a restriction order made under subsection 13(3); or

    (c) a detention order suspended under subsection 15(1) ("suspended detention order"),

direct that the duration of the order be extended for such further period, not exceeding two years for a detention order or five years for a restriction order, as the Board may specify, commencing immediately upon the expiration of its then current duration.

How unjust the ability to be able to DETAIN or RESTRICT that can never be challenged or questioned even in a court of law? The only thing that one can challenge in court is whether the procedures leading to the making the order was followed - not the REASONs for the orders...

19  Judicial review of act or decision of Board

(1) There shall be no judicial review in any court of, and no court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of, any act done or decision made by the Board in the exercise of its discretionary power in accordance with this Act, except in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision.

HOW MANY ARE NOW BEING DETAINED WITHOUT TRIAL IN MALAYSIA?

In a media report in March 2016, it was stated, 'More than 160 people suspected of having ties to Isis have been detained in Malaysia in the past two years..' - well, it will be good to know exactly, how many are being detained under DETENTION ORDERS under POTA...how many under POCA?

IS, is it an attempt to distract us? IGP's 'challenge' cause the bombing? How many now under Detention Without Trial?

HOW MANY ARE UNDER DRACONIAN 'RESTRICTION ORDERS'?  

REPEAL ALL DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL LAWS, AND IMMEDIATELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY RELEASE ALL CURRENTLY DETAINED AND/OR RESTRICTED WITHOUT TRIAL...