SOSMA - Is it time for Malaysian Lawyers to take a strong position, as in 1977, when they called for a boycott of trials using ESCAR?
Is it time for Malaysian lawyers to have yet another peaceful assembly calling for the immediate repeal of SOSMA, a similar and maybe worse than ESCAR?
SOSMA is used - but we do not have statistics? How many victims? SOSMA does not create any new offences - but removes right to be brought before Magistrate within 24 hours, No remand without Magistrate's remand order, NO BAIL (save for few exception) until trial is over...
Arrested for a 'security offence' under SOSMA - means they will charged in court and given a TRIAL >
So, how many suspects arrested for a 'security offence' and SOSMA was used was NEVER CHARGED in court?
So, how many were charged in court for a 'security offence' and BAIL denied - they stay in detention until end of trial/appeal? How many were found NOT GUILTY? How many were found GUILTY?
Essential Security Cases Regulations (ESCAR), was a draconian law that provided for the admission of evidence, not admissible in any other trials in Malaysia. It also provided for 'special procedures' during trials that were most unjust to the accused person(and his/her lawyer).
What did the Malaysian Bar do about ESCAR? Well, they took a very strong stand calling for its abolition - They even passed a Malaysian Bar Resolution in effect calling on lawyers to BOYCOTT trials when ESCAR was used..
The amendments were introduced in the wake of the Essential Security Cases Regulations (ESCAR) trials controversy of 1977 when the Bar adopted a resolution to boycott the ESCAR trials because of the removal of the traditional safeguards enjoyed by accused persons.- Dato’ Dr. Cyrus Das,President, Malaysian Bar, 9/2/1999
1. When the government introduced the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975 or ESCAR to amend the law for trial of "security offences", particularly in respect of the basic rules of evidence. As an example, ESCAR allows for excluding of both the accused and counsel from the court room when evidence is taken from a witness. ESCAR allows for a witness to give testimony hiding his face and even his voice from the accused and/or his counsel.
2. In October 1977, in response to the government introducing the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975 ("ESCAR"), the Malaysian Bar passed a resolution at an Extraordinary General Meeting criticising ESCAR as laws that " were manifestly unfair and unjust as to offend the conscience of all good men" and also advised its members not to appear for accused tried under the laws in protest of the same on the premise that an accused under ESCAR would be denied a fair trial notwithstanding provision for presence of counsel.
Well, the government then was not happy - and so they brought in amendments to the Legal Profession Act that governs the Malaysian Bar - they made it difficult for lawyers to make quorum at their General Meetings, they disqualified certain groups of lawyers from being able to be elected into the Malaysian Bar and State Bar leadership...or even be in any committees of the Bar - this disqualification applied to 'young lawyers', those who held political party positions..
3. The government in response to the criticism of the Bar, introduced the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill 1977 which allowed the Attorney-General to admit foreign lawyers, increased the quorum requirements of general meetings of the Bar to 1/5 of its membership and automatically disqualified certain classes of lawyers from holding office in the Bar Council, the State Bar Committees and their sub-committees.
Then SOSMA, an act similar or maybe worse, came into being. The Malaysian Bar continued to protest this draconian act - calling for its repeal...
Malaysian Bar Resolution 2017
...SOSMA — A New ESCAR(44) The Malaysian Bar opposed the passing of the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975 (“ESCAR”), which were promulgated to amend the procedural and evidential rules in relation to trials for offences against the national interest. ESCAR brought draconian changes in the basic rules of evidence and the judicial discretion of the courts in meting out sentences.(45) In October 1977, the Malaysian Bar held an Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) to discuss ESCAR, and resolved to advise all Members of the Bar not to appear in trials under ESCAR.(46) SOSMA is similar to ESCAR, and the Malaysian Bar needs to strongly oppose its usage, and call for its repeal.Therefore, it is hereby resolved:....(C) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian Government to repeal the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 [Act 747] (“SOSMA”);
...
Malaysian Bar Resolution 2019
it is hereby resolved that the Malaysian Bar:
(A) Call for the immediate abolition of the following draconian legislation:
(i) Sedition Act 1948;1
(ii) Prevention of Crime Act 1959;2
(iii) Universities and University Colleges Act 1971;3
(iv) Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984;4
(v) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985;5
(vi) Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012;6
(vii) Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015;7 and
(viii) National Security Council Act 2015.8
(B) Call for the immediate repeal of the following draconian legislative provisions:(i) Penal Code, sections 124B to 124J;
(ii) Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, in relation to sections 233, 263, and other vague provisions;9
(iii) Official Secrets Act 1972, sections 2A, 2B and 16A;10
(iv) Film Censorship Act 2002, sections 23(2) and 48;11 and
(v) Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, section 4;12
Another Resolution that year also stated clearly ...C. The Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian government to abolish Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012;
SOSMA - not the new ISA and no death penalty...Let's understand SOSMA better?
Malaysian Bar - SOSMA Must Not be Abused to Quell Dissent - condemns arrest of Maria Chin?
Bar Resolution for the Repeal of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and All Detention Without Trial Laws, and Provision for Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty of the Innocent
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment