©The Star (Used by permission)
By SHAHANAAZ HABIB
AT first, de facto law minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz didn't believe the police use the Emergency Ordinance (EO) on petty thefts.
“If it's true, I'm surprised. The EO is meant for hardcore criminals. It is not meant to be used for petty thefts like stealing motorbikes.
“I don't think the police are using it on petty thefts. Prove me wrong,” he said in an interview two weeks earlier.
When contacted again, after the police explained that they do use the EO on petty crimes, including motorcycle thefts in the interest of public security, Nazri admits to have been proven wrong.
“If it's true, I'm surprised. The EO is meant for hardcore criminals. It is not meant to be used for petty thefts like stealing motorbikes.
“I don't think the police are using it on petty thefts. Prove me wrong,” he said in an interview two weeks earlier.
When contacted again, after the police explained that they do use the EO on petty crimes, including motorcycle thefts in the interest of public security, Nazri admits to have been proven wrong.
He also accepts the police's explanation. “I understand their difficulty. If using the EO helps in the security to the country, we have to leave it to the police. It's not for me to tell them how to do their business because their primary concern is the security and stability of society.
“It's tough for me. As a lawyer, I feel the police have to try and find enough proof first to bring the case to court but I believe the police know what they are doing.”
Nevertheless, there should be safeguards, Nazri says.
“We have to think of some safeguards to make sure there is no abuse,” Suaram, a human rights NGO, and human rights lawyer Edmund Bon who handles a number of EO cases, say the police have been increasingly using the EO on petty crimes.
But as far as Nazri is concerned, the EO has been used sparingly.
“It is not to be used suka suka hati (indiscriminately). We need to have this tool to enforce order. If there is abuse, then address the abuse. Don't repeal the law.
“Don't burn the mosquito net; attack the mosquito,” he says.
He adds that complaints of abuse can be referred to the Suruhanjaya Integrity Agensi Penguatkuasa (SIAP/ Integrity Enforcement Agency Commission).
The EO was made after a Proclamation of Emergency was declared by the Yang di–Pertuan Agong on May 15, 1969, two days after the May 13 racial riots.
More than 30 years later, the proclamation still stands, as well as a number of emergency–related ordinances made with it.
Nazri points out that from time to time the Government does evaluate these ordinances.
Some, like Ordinance No. 7 (Essential Powers) 1969, were revoked in 2006 because they were no longer deemed relevant.
But he stresses that other ordinances, and the EO (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) 1969 in particular, are still very relevant and essential to combat crime as well as to ensure public order, and safeguard the security and economy of the country.
Nazri believes the EO is used in circumstances where the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Police Act are “not suitable”.
The offences committed under the EO, he adds, are usually (but not always) more serious than offences that can be covered by the normal laws.
“But the EO is used very carefully after taking into consideration all factors,” he stresses.
Nazri says one should also remember that the EO is a deterrent measure.
So, he says, the police have the right to detain someone if they believe he or she is about to act or is likely to act in any manner “prejudicial to public order” or they feel it is necessary for the “suppression of violence” and also the “prevention of crimes involving violence.”
He says the EO is also used on gangsters running criminal activities as the police sometimes prefer to detain rather than charge these people so that they can get their co–operation and details of their network.
“Catching (underworld) gangsters is not easy,” he adds.
What about minors? Why are some being held under the EO?
“It is unfortunate that there are minors being detained under the EO but the criteria aren't age. Rather it is the threat that these people pose which is being used as the yardstick.”
But he does not agree with the EO being used on kids for things like stealing chocolates, cigarettes and drinks from 7–11 convenience stores. There must be a better way of handling such situations, like getting the parents of these kids involved to keep them out of trouble, he says.
Currently, there are 642 detainees at the Simpang Renggam detention centre (main centre for EO detainees). There are another two detention centres, one each in Machang and Muar.
While EO detainees are not tried in court, Nazri reiterates that they do have rights, including the right to know why they are being held, the facts behind their detention order and the right to make a representation to the Advisory Board.
On the use of the EO on the six Parti Sosialis Malaysia members (popularly referred to as EO6), Nazri insists the police were right to take action based on their concern for public order and security.
Defending the use of the EO on the six, Nazri says the ISA would not have been appropriate.
“They (EO6) are not terrorists. In the past, the Government used ISA on politicians but the thinking these days is that the ISA should be used only for terrorists,” he says, adding that after the EO detention for investigation purposes, the police proceeded to charge the six in court.
Regarding the proposed amendments to the ISA, Nazri hopes it will be tabled in the next parliament session. There are many bills in the queue and all have to wait for their turn to be tabled, he adds.
But he is firm on the EO, saying there are no plans to amend it.
Neither are there plans to revoke the 1969 Proclamation of Emergency.
“The (1969) Emergency doesn't specify that it's only for racial riots. It can be for anything public order, safety, security and it can even include things like famines, earthquakes, floods, epidemics and the collapse of civil government.
“The term emergency' doesn't refer to only the actual violence or breach of peace. An imminent danger is enough.
“Emergency deals with urgency. Things can happen any time.
“Should we wait for clashes and only then we move to proclaim an Emergency? By then, it might be too late,” he says.
A point to note, he adds, is that some of the region's top terrorists, such as Jemaah Islamiah's Nordin Top and Azhari Mat Husin (both who have been killed in Indonesia), were Malaysians.
“Doesn't it occur to you why they can't operate in Malaysia? There has been no bombing of hotels, churches or of American interests here.
“In Indonesia, there have been clashes between the Muslims and Christians but that has never happened here.
“We have Acts like the EO and the ISA to thank for this.”
“It's tough for me. As a lawyer, I feel the police have to try and find enough proof first to bring the case to court but I believe the police know what they are doing.”
Nevertheless, there should be safeguards, Nazri says.
“We have to think of some safeguards to make sure there is no abuse,” Suaram, a human rights NGO, and human rights lawyer Edmund Bon who handles a number of EO cases, say the police have been increasingly using the EO on petty crimes.
But as far as Nazri is concerned, the EO has been used sparingly.
“It is not to be used suka suka hati (indiscriminately). We need to have this tool to enforce order. If there is abuse, then address the abuse. Don't repeal the law.
“Don't burn the mosquito net; attack the mosquito,” he says.
He adds that complaints of abuse can be referred to the Suruhanjaya Integrity Agensi Penguatkuasa (SIAP/ Integrity Enforcement Agency Commission).
The EO was made after a Proclamation of Emergency was declared by the Yang di–Pertuan Agong on May 15, 1969, two days after the May 13 racial riots.
More than 30 years later, the proclamation still stands, as well as a number of emergency–related ordinances made with it.
Nazri points out that from time to time the Government does evaluate these ordinances.
Some, like Ordinance No. 7 (Essential Powers) 1969, were revoked in 2006 because they were no longer deemed relevant.
But he stresses that other ordinances, and the EO (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) 1969 in particular, are still very relevant and essential to combat crime as well as to ensure public order, and safeguard the security and economy of the country.
Nazri believes the EO is used in circumstances where the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Police Act are “not suitable”.
The offences committed under the EO, he adds, are usually (but not always) more serious than offences that can be covered by the normal laws.
“But the EO is used very carefully after taking into consideration all factors,” he stresses.
Nazri says one should also remember that the EO is a deterrent measure.
So, he says, the police have the right to detain someone if they believe he or she is about to act or is likely to act in any manner “prejudicial to public order” or they feel it is necessary for the “suppression of violence” and also the “prevention of crimes involving violence.”
He says the EO is also used on gangsters running criminal activities as the police sometimes prefer to detain rather than charge these people so that they can get their co–operation and details of their network.
“Catching (underworld) gangsters is not easy,” he adds.
What about minors? Why are some being held under the EO?
“It is unfortunate that there are minors being detained under the EO but the criteria aren't age. Rather it is the threat that these people pose which is being used as the yardstick.”
But he does not agree with the EO being used on kids for things like stealing chocolates, cigarettes and drinks from 7–11 convenience stores. There must be a better way of handling such situations, like getting the parents of these kids involved to keep them out of trouble, he says.
Currently, there are 642 detainees at the Simpang Renggam detention centre (main centre for EO detainees). There are another two detention centres, one each in Machang and Muar.
While EO detainees are not tried in court, Nazri reiterates that they do have rights, including the right to know why they are being held, the facts behind their detention order and the right to make a representation to the Advisory Board.
On the use of the EO on the six Parti Sosialis Malaysia members (popularly referred to as EO6), Nazri insists the police were right to take action based on their concern for public order and security.
Defending the use of the EO on the six, Nazri says the ISA would not have been appropriate.
“They (EO6) are not terrorists. In the past, the Government used ISA on politicians but the thinking these days is that the ISA should be used only for terrorists,” he says, adding that after the EO detention for investigation purposes, the police proceeded to charge the six in court.
Regarding the proposed amendments to the ISA, Nazri hopes it will be tabled in the next parliament session. There are many bills in the queue and all have to wait for their turn to be tabled, he adds.
But he is firm on the EO, saying there are no plans to amend it.
Neither are there plans to revoke the 1969 Proclamation of Emergency.
“The (1969) Emergency doesn't specify that it's only for racial riots. It can be for anything public order, safety, security and it can even include things like famines, earthquakes, floods, epidemics and the collapse of civil government.
“The term emergency' doesn't refer to only the actual violence or breach of peace. An imminent danger is enough.
“Emergency deals with urgency. Things can happen any time.
“Should we wait for clashes and only then we move to proclaim an Emergency? By then, it might be too late,” he says.
A point to note, he adds, is that some of the region's top terrorists, such as Jemaah Islamiah's Nordin Top and Azhari Mat Husin (both who have been killed in Indonesia), were Malaysians.
“Doesn't it occur to you why they can't operate in Malaysia? There has been no bombing of hotels, churches or of American interests here.
“In Indonesia, there have been clashes between the Muslims and Christians but that has never happened here.
“We have Acts like the EO and the ISA to thank for this.”