7/27/2019 No to preventive laws but yes to enhancing police investigative powers

1/3

No to preventive laws but yes to

enhancing police investigative

powers - ProhamJULY 28, 2013LATEST UPDATE: JULY 28, 2013 04:19 PM

Proham hosted a Roundtable Discussion together with the University Malaya, Law Faculty

on July 25, 2013 which was attended by about 35 people including lawyers, academicians,

civil society representatives, concerned citizens and media personal.

Among those who are participated were Tun Zaki Azmi (former Chief Justice),Dato KC

Vohrah (Former Court of Appeal Judge) Tan Sri Zaman Khan (Former Commissioner ofPolice and CID Chief), Prof Emeritus Dr Shad Faruqi, Mr James Nayagam (Suhakam), Mr

Steve Thiru (Bar Council), Mr K.Arumugam (Suram), Mr Eric Paulsen (Lawyers for Liberty),

Dr Abdul Samad (UM Law Faculty) and from Proham: Datuk Kuthubul Zaman, Dato Siva

Subramanium, Ms Ivy Josiah, Dr Lin Mui Kiang and Datuk Vaithilingam. The RTD was

moderated by Proham secretary-general, Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria

It was a fruitful discussion with an exchange of ideas. The focus of the discussion was

whether the Police needs preventive laws (detention without trial) to address serious crime in

Malaysia. There were those who spoke for the need to return to an EO type of legislation in

order to address the rise in crime in Malaysian society.

However the dominant position held by a majority of the speakers was not to enact laws

which provided detentions without trial but to enhance the capacity of the Police to use the

existing laws provided for in the Penal code and the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 or enact a

law similar to the United States legislation, the racketeer influenced and corruption

organisations act which has proved successful against organised crimes like gambling,

robbery, money laundering etc.

Ten Key Findings from the Roundtable Discussions

First, there is a strong consensus view that the Police needs support, encouragement and

appreciation in undertaking difficult tasks in crime prevention. Critical review of the role

played by PDRM does not mean our disrespect or disregard of the Police force. Our

aspirations like those highlighted in the Police Commission Report are for world class

policing.

Second, it must be noted that crime in Malaysian society especially organised crime is at a

serious level and this is creating a sense of insecurity in our society. However we do

1

7/27/2019 No to preventive laws but yes to enhancing police investigative powers

2/3

acknowledge that there seems to be some conflicting data on the rate of crime released by

Pemandu on the NKRA targets that crime was down in 2011 and 2012 but later in recent

discussions this year it is being noted that there is a rise in crime due to the release of former

EO detainees in 2011/2012. There is no credible evidence in the public dominion on the rise

in crime associated with the release of EO detainees.

Third, those who are advocating a position against detention without trial are not pro

criminals nor soft on crime. On the contrary it is felt that we must be tough on crime. But the

best way towards this is bringing the wrong doers before the courts in open trial. This was

felt to be the strongest deterrent as tough laws in themselves do not serve as a deterrent as

we note in the case of the Dangerous Drug laws. It was pointed out that the key is not the

severity of the law but the surety or in other words not the severity of the punishment but

certainty of the punishment

Fourth, it was clearly articulated by a number of the speakers that there are currently

adequate laws available to the Police in Malaysia. A good piece of legislation which hadbeen neglected due to the over reliance on the EO is the Prevention of Crime Act 1959

(Revised 1983).

This act is meant to provide for the more effectual prevention of crime in Peninsular Malaysia

and provides for the control of criminals, members of secret societies and other undesirable

persons. It provides for 28 days remand for investigations and conducting an enquiry. An

additional 28 days could be requested for. Part II of PCA, makes provision for an Inquiry

officer appointed by the relevant Minister and the registry of persons who could be subjected

to Police supervision. The current registrable categories could be extended in the schedule

by the Minister. It has to be noted that there is concern whether some provisions are entirely

constitutional.

Fifthly, the Penal Code was amended in 2012 with a new provision Chapter VIB to address

issues pertaining to organised criminal groups. This was done in the light of the repeal of

the EO and therefore anyone involved in organised crime or is assisting an organised

criminal group can be charged under these provisions.

Sixth, there is now no provision for detention without trial in the Security Offences (Special

Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) which replaced the ISA and which deals with terrorism and

national security The Act provides for 28 days detention for investigative purposes. If this is

step is taken by the Federal Government how can there be a return to detention byMinisterial order in the case of criminal activities?

Seventh, there are contradictory information on manpower and resources available in PDRM

for criminal investigations and crime prevention. It was pointed out that less than 15% of the

Police manpower is involved in crime investigations and therefore there is insufficient

manpower, finances, facilities and equipments. In addition there were questions raised on

2

7/27/2019 No to preventive laws but yes to enhancing police investigative powers

3/3

the quality of supervision and training of investigative officers including the lack of forensic

training and equipment.

In this context both PDRM and KDN must review Chapter 8 of the Royal Police Commission

report which makes 26 different recommendations to improve investigative policing. If

effectively implemented, it will enhance PDRMs performance in crime prevention.

Eight, concern was raised on the lack of preparation on the part of both the Prisons

Department and PDRM when the EO detainees were released without adequate preparation

for the rehabilitation and entry into society. It would have been possible with the information

available on the detainees that they could have been registered under the Prevention of

Crime Act and placed under Police supervision

Nine, that in addressing serious crime, the root cause of crime must be also addressed

which requires socio-economic intervention programmes to address inequality, urban

poverty, lack of adequate and affordable housing and ensure equal opportunities in

education and employment. This social inclusion agenda will prevent new recruits into gang

related activities. This agenda is beyond the role of policing and therefore a multi-agency

intervention is necessary in cooperation between the Department of Welfare, Department of

National unity and the Department for Youth and Sports.

Tenth and finally there must be a close partnership between PDRM, civil society, grassroots-

communities and private sector in addressing serious crime. The community dimension is

important but the engagement must bridge the deficit of trust between enforcement

authority and the citizen. This partnership can be built on the foundations of human rights.

Therefore, Proham calls on the Federal Government to address serious crime through

effective use of investigative policing and not resort to preventive detention. We must strive

for world class standards in Policing. - July 28, 2013.

* Proham is the Association for the Promotion of Human Rights, Malaysia.

3