Concerned over the ongoing police crackdown against activists and politicians, Gerakan Youth has questioned how the inspector-general of police (IGP) define sedition and rallies.
It is also a case of misplaced priorities as there are many pressing issues that the police needed to deal with urgently, its deputy chief Andy Yong said.
Does the IGP really know the law before an arrest (is made)? Or he prefers to define ‘seditious tendency’ in the Act according to his wishes?” quizzed Yong, who is a lawyer.
Issues such as security of the country and illegal activities are pressing matters that the police should focus on, rather than curb public assembly or honing in on sedition.
In the arrests connected to protests, he said the police deemed these protests illegal because the 10 days’ notice was not given.
“Don’t they know there are several cases decided by the court that Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) which requires the organiser to give 10 days’ notice to the police is ultra vires (the constitution),” he asked further.
Yong referred to the Court of Appeal landmark case of Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad vs Public Prosecutor, which stipulates the requisite to give prior notice before an assembly is unlawful.
‘As long as it’s peaceful’
The PAA, Yong said, gives a right for every citizen to assemble, whether notice was given or not.
“To criminalise for not giving notice and penalising the organiser has no nexus to ‘public order’ or ‘interest of the security of the Federation’ unless the assembly was not peaceful.
He reminded the police that as long as the assembly is peaceful, criminalising it is not integral to the purpose of the legislation.
Yong was referring to the spate of arrests of activists and opposition leaders following a rally held in Kuala Lumpur earlier this month, and also the arrests of individuals who posted comments on political or religious matters on twitter.
The lawyer added judicial precedents prove the recent arrests have no strong basis, especially when there were no reports of violence and the gatherings are peaceful.
“Until there actually is a report of violence escalating during the rally, there is no need for the police to enforce the PAA,” he said.
Yong added that Malaysia should emulate countries like Hong Kong or Britain, where the police are there to ensure public order and security, and demonstrators do not resort to violence.
“Hence, ultimately I urge the police to concentrate more on reducing crime instead of being perceived as being used as a political tool,” the Gerakan leader voiced out.
Yong’s statement today echoes the concern made by newly elected Malaysian Bar president, Steven Thiru who reminded the police that they should respect constitutional rights.
Gerakan: Does IGP define rallies, sedition as he wish? – http://m.malaysiakini.com/news/293508
We never challenge the religion nor its law. It is not a question of why the non-Muslims are so worried about Hudud as it is not applicable to them. By the way, we are more concern of Hudud by Pas and its validity.
18.3.2015 Kota Bahru: Gerakan Legal Team led by Gerakan Deputy Youth Chief Andy Yong Kim Seng has filed a court case against the amendments to the Syariah Criminal Code (II) Enactment that facilitates Hudud implementation in Kelantan at the Kota Bahru High Court today. Other members of the legal team who were present at the courthouse including Jayanthi Devi Balaguru, Chai Ko Ting and Ong Siang Liang as well as around 30 Gerakan members who were there to support the cause.
It is understood that PAS will table the amendments Hudud Bill at the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly today. Andy Yong asserted that Gerakan steadfastly maintains that the Bill is unconstitutional and impractical as it is against the basic foundations of the nationhood as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The party has decided to challenge its constitutionality following PAS’s insistence to table the Bill despite repeated warnings.
“Gerakan is firmly against the implementation of Hudud in Kelantan or any other parts in Malaysia and we seek legal redress to declare the Bill is unconstitutional and therefore void,” said Andy Yong.
“We in Gerakan are committed to safeguard the Federal Constitution as well as protecting the rights and interests of the people through our legal challenge against Hudud, we appeal support from all parties as it is a Malaysians’ response to this Hudud crisis,” said Andy Yong.
Recently Tony Pua has been consistently threatens to expose more of the alleged 1MDB fund’s corruption, incompetence and abuse of power after he received a court writ from the Prime Minister for a defamation suit. Tony also accused that such legal suit is a strategy to silence him by the Prime Minister.
To this Andy Yong, National Deputy Youth Chief of Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia urges Tony to stop playing “smokescreen” politics as he has been fond of doing since elected as Petaling Jaya Utara member of parliament.
“It will be more productive for him as a “wakil rakyat” to serve the nation productively instead of shouting, demonstrating and issuing statements” said Andy.
Tony also accused the PM lack of governance, transparency and accountability, in order to paint a picture as if that the country’s economy under the PM’s leadership is going down the drain.
“Do not forget his own dirty linen in Cyber Village Sdn Bhd before becoming an active politician. Does he wants to open his own can of worms?” asked Andy.
The PM has also called for probe into accounts of 1MDB account recently. Andy added “while it is a right move, the audit shall be conducted independently and without any political interference”.
Last Andy comments that “above all Tony should first understand the fundamentals of company laws before confusing the people with negative statements in relation to 1MDB”.
“不要忘记他在成为活跃政治家前，在Cyber Village Sdn Bhd的丑事，难道他想自揭疮疤？”杨锦成问。
In the past, there had been several controversial matrimonial cases due to the conversion to Islam by a non-Muslim spouse in civil marriages.
To this Parti Gerakan National Deputy Youth Chief Andy Yong said “this is particularly so when one spouse (usually the husband) who has converted to Islam without the knowledge of the other. The situation made complicated when the children of the marriage are also being converted to Islam without the knowledge or consent of another parent. Other related controversial issues involved the validity of divorce, maintenance, alimony, burial ceremony and court’s jurisdiction (between civil and Syariah courts) in deciding the dispute”.
It is reported recently that Negeri Sembilan Islamic Religious Council (MAINS) has proposed new regulations such as requiring a non-Muslim to obtain dissolution of marriage from his or her spouse before converting to Islam.
Andy supports the said proposal as this will resolves all previous legal complications when one spouse converted unilaterally. This is especially so in relation to section 51(1) of the Law Reform Act (Marriage and Divorce) 1976 that stipulates “when one party to a marriage has converted to Islam, the other party who has not so converted may petition for divorce” of which there is a lacunae here (which is often the case) when the converted spouse did not inform his or her spouse.
Other related law that is potentially solved too includes Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution where it states “…the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian”. “This particular provision has created legal controversy and dispute in the past as there were different thoughts on the interpretation of “parent” resulting injustice to the non-converting spouse. And if such proposal by MAINS is passed, the civil court may also decide issues involving support, care and custody of the children prior to the conversion ” added Andy.
Lastly Andy agrees that “it will be ideal if other states follow the same proposal by MAINS in order to avoid controversy and most importantly would ensure that Islam would not be ridiculed just because of a wrongdoing of a Muslim convert. This is also to protect the sanctity of Islam”.