It is high time for the lawmakers and relevant authorities to look into requirements of a remand proceeding particularly cases related less serious offences.
Recent arrest of the 17 students who protested peacefully in front of the Parliament is an example of possible abuse by the relevant authority. It is reported that the prosecuting officer requested for one week remand against the students but is granted 3 days by the Magistrate. The students are said to be investigated under section 124B of the Penal Code and Peaceful Assembly Act 2012. They are now detained at the Jinjang police detention centre.
Parti Gerakan Deputy Youth Chief Andy Yong who is a lawyer said “under section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”), the basis of a remand is due to the investigation could not complete within 24 hours of the arrest and that there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information against (the students) are well founded. Considering the manner of the arrest, I am skeptical that the police is bona fide in carrying out their investigation in accordance to the law.”
Andy added “the police could have allow bail after the statement recorded. They do not require complicated or difficult investigation like those in serious offences, it is absurd even to allow 3 days remand. Not to mention the students are cooperative and unlikely to leave the country and unlike the anti-Bersih group, no violence is caused or threatened by the students”.
“I wonder what did the police record in their investigation diary during the remand proceeding to provide reason of the remand (if there is any). Often the Magistrate is allow such application by the prosecuting officer or deputy public prosecutor instead of acting independently to consider the severity and merits of the case”
In the circumstance by detaining the students, it caused undue stress, anguish and fear not only on them but their family members. I therefore urge the authority to act impartial and release them soonest possible.
Gerakan Youth deputy chief Andy Yong today questioned the police for practising double standards for arresting students last night but not those who participated at the anti-Bersih rally.
Yong (photo), who is also a lawyer, said the students had only gathered for a peaceful protest in front of the Parliament.
“Last weekend we had the anti-Bersih group which openly declared violence, and hence more so they should be arrested under the penal code. They rallied in front of Sogo with monkey shows recently. Why the double standards (by the police),” he asked.
Last night police arrested 13 male and three female students following their peaceful protest demanding Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s resignation.
A group of 30 policemen apprehended the students after they refused to leave.
Hope authorities will be fair
Yong quizzed whether police would resort to more arrests this weekend following the Bersih 4 rally.
“I hope the authorities will be fair and detain those who have violated the laws from both sides.
“The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, provides every citizen the right to assemble, whether or not notice was given to the police. I hope the police force’s intention in criminalising the right to assemble is in accordance with the law,” he reminded.
Unless there is an actual report of violence escalating at the rally, Yong said there is no need for the police to enforce the Act.
The Gerakan Youth leader cited the Court of Appeal case of Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad vs Public Prosecutor, which stipulates the requisite of giving prior notice before an assembly is deemed unlawful, and that the punishment accorded for not giving a notice is unconstitutional.
“Malaysia should emulate countries like Hong Kong or Britain, where police were present to ensure public order and security in such peaceful rallies,” he said.
Gerakan queries police double standards in students arrest – http://m.malaysiakini.com/news/309923
One of Gerakan’s ideology is to preserve our long-tested system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.
An act or attempt to do an activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy can land you in jail for 20 years!
Had a talk with a lawyer friend today. Some people are fearful that s.124B Penal Code would be abused by the police as it was seen in recent cases involving MACC officers, activists etc. Someone could have foolishly advised the PM or Minister to make use of such provision.
I agree that s.124B and so forth are very broad. By the way what is exactly “parliamentary democracy”?
This provision applies not only against the opposition politicians or pro-opposition individuals or groups or ordinary citizens but also the PM, cabinet and BN politicians. Even the IGP or AG can be investigated, arrested and charged under it if what they did or said or issued or printed or circulated falls under s.124.
Of course, above all the main culprit is still corruption…
All on-going investigations into the 1MDB scandal are no longer trustworthy as the people no longer have faith in them, even if the outcomes may be true, a BN Youth leader has declared.
Therefore, an independent Royal Commission of Inquiry should be set up to investigate the matter, Gerakan Deputy Youth chairperson Andy Yong told Malaysiakini today.
“Generally, Malaysians, especially those who are educated and without vested interests, will not believe the investigation report or outcome by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Public Accounts Committee, Attorney-General or the police – even if the findings are true.
“Hence, the only solution is to set up a truly independent RCI,” Yong (photo) said.
He said members of the RCI into 1MDB should consist of people from all walks of life including professionals, judges, business people and ordinary citizens.
“Transparent and fair appointment can be made via the selection of jury in a court system or vote by equal numbers of MPs from both political sides,” Yong said, adding that honesty is the best policy.
The MACC announced yesterday that the RM2.6 billion deposited into Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s personal accounts were from donations and not from the 1MDB account.
Social media users vent frustrations
This left many Malaysians in disbelief. Social media users took to Twitter to vent their frustrations, making the hashtag #DearNajib one of the top trending topics yesterday.
KUALA LUMPUR, 30 Julai: Gerakan menyifatkan penguguran jawatan Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin sebagai Timbalan Perdana Menteri sebagai satu “permainan politik” sehinggakan kepentingan rakyat dan ekonomi di negara ini diketepikan.
Menurut Timbalan Ketua Pemuda Gerakan, Andy Yong, adalah cukup melampau sekiranya Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak menggunakan kuasa sebagai seorang pemimpin untuk mengukuhkan kedudukan dirinya sendiri.
“Perdana Menteri harus sedar bahawa pada zaman kini, rakyat yang memutuskan siapakah pemimpin negara yang sesuai untuk mereka.
“Kuasa seseorang pemimpin tidak kira latar belakang, ada hadnya. Jikalau ia digunakan semata-mata untuk menguatkan kepentingan diri, ia amat melampaui batasan,” katanya dalam satu kenyataan kepada The Malaysian Times (TMT).
Beliau berkata demikian merujuk kepada pengumuman yang dibuat oleh Najib pada Selasa bahawa Muhyiddin dilucutkan jawatan sebagai Timbalan Perdana Menteri dan jawatannya itu kini digantikan oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri selaku Naib Presiden Umno, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.
Selain itu, Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal yang juga merupakan salah seorang Naib Presiden Umno turut digugurkan dari Kabinet.
Bagi Andy, beliau berpandangan sekiranya terdapat mana-mana pihak yang mengambil kesempatan dan juga keuntungan dalam hal ini, maka pihak tersebut mestilah disingkirkan serta-merta.
“Diharap Kabinet baru sedar dan akan utamakan politik ikhlas demi negara dan rakyat. Mereka yang ambil kesempatan untuk ambil keuntungan, haruslah disingkir serta-merta,” tegasnya.
BN party files complaint with RoS over new movement’s use of ‘Gerakan’ – The Malaysian Insider – http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/bn-party-files-complaint-with-ros-over-new-movements-use-of-gerakan
Khalid Samad dismisses Gerakan’s worry over word in new GHB movement – http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/khalid-samad-dimisses-gerakans-worry-over-word-in-new-ghb-movement
Putting aside political support or any cognitive bias, let us look at the legal aspect of whether Gerakan Harapan Baru (GHB) can register its proposed new political party at the Registrar of Societies.
The Societies Act 1966 regulates the registration of any political party in Malaysia.
Section 7 (3)(d)(i)-(iii) of the Act states if the name under which the [party] is to be registered—
(i) appears to the Registrar to mislead or be calculated to mislead members of the public as to the true character or purpose of the [party] or so nearly resembles the name of such other [party] as is likely to deceive the members of the public or members of either [party];
(ii) is identical to that of any other existing local party; or
(iii) is, in the opinion of the Registrar, undesirable.
So in general, it is an objective test ie would an ordinary person be misled between Gerakan Harapan Baru (GHB) with Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (popularly known as Gerakan)?
As far as I am concerned, there is yet to be any case decided by our local Court concerning dispute of a political party’s name.
Referring to the case of Woollard v. Australian Electoral Commission and Liberal Party of Australia (WA Division) Inc  AATA 166 a Tribunal considered an appeal against an AEC refusal to register the party “liberals for forests” because the name was too similar to that of the Liberal Party of Australia and its abbreviation “Liberal”.
The Tribunal, comprising three federal court judges, directed the AEC to register “liberals for forests” and held that the names were not so similar as to prohibit the registration of “liberals for forests”. The Tribunal stated that political parties use in their names generic words such as “Australia”, “liberal”, “labour”, “democrat”, “national”, “christian”, “progressive”, “socialist” and the like.
Apparently based on the ratio decidendi of this case, it is in favour of GHB to register it’s name.
In another case of The Fishing Party v. Australian Electoral Commission and Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party  AATA 170; one of the matters raised and considered was the similarity of the names and whether the new party’s name should therefore be prohibited. The Tribunal stated that the AEC “has previously formed the opinion that the two names of the Fishing Party and the Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party are not sufficiently similar as to be misleading or confusing. No argument was advanced by [the applicant] in support of this contention. We agree with this determination because the words “and Lifestyle” are sufficient to aurally and visually distinguish the two parties as separate entities without risk of confusion or mistake, and would prevent a reasonable person from thinking there was any connection or relationship between the two parties.”
However subsequently the AEC has refused a party called the “Country Liberals” (unrelated to the Liberal Party) as it could be seen to be the branch of the Liberal Party of Australia which addresses the needs of country Australia.
The party was eventually registered using the name Country Liberals (Northern Territory).
So is GERAKAN a contentious name?