The Malaysian Bar - Regressive laws to go

Home

News

Legal/General News

Regressive laws to go

Friday, 25 November 2011 09:21am

©The New Straits Times (Used by permission)
by Ili liyana Mokhtar and Suganthi Supramaniam

Three emergency proclamations to be scrapped

IN fulfilling his pledge to ease out archaic security laws, Datuk Seri Najib Razak tabled a motion in Parliament yesterday to scrap three emergency proclamations made in 1966, 1969 and 1977.

He reinforced his pledge with a parallel move to permit university students above the age of 21 the freedom to join political parties.

Regressive laws to go The prime minister’s motion maintains the pace he set to drop security laws deemed out of touch with the present political scenario.

Najib is seeking the Dewan Rakyat’s approval to lift the emergency proclamations issued by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on:

SEPT 14, 1966, aimed at resolving the political dispute in Sarawak;

MAY 15, 1969 following the May 13 race riots; and,

NOV 8, 1977, aimed at resolving the political disputes in Kelantan.

The proclamations were instituted to control crime or threats to security besides safeguarding economic life and public order.

The removal of the proclamations also means the government cannot enact or pass new emergency laws under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution.

The government is looking at a March date to table the necessary bill.

Najib provided three reasons for repealing these emergency laws:

THE EMERGENCY situation threatening the nation’s security, economic life and public order is in the past;

IT DEMONSTRATES the government’s preparedness to carry out reforms in line with the nation’s current needs; and,

ALTHOUGH “we are the government in power, we are lifting certain powers without being forced to do so”.

Describing these reforms as monumental, the motion was the second part of the government’s political transformation programme Najib announced in a Malaysia Day address

on Sept 15.

The first phase repealed the Banishment Act 1959 and the Restricted Residence Act 1933, followed by the release of detainees held under this act and revocation of all arrest warrants.

“There are certain quarters that like to promise the moon and the stars when they have yet to form a government but their promises are empty,” Najib said in reference to the opposition’s “empty promises”.

In a statement issued later, he said: “Malaysia has a proud history of democracy but in the 21st century, the challenges we face are different to those we faced in the 1960s and 1970s.

"I am committed to making Malaysia a modern, progressive nation, which is why I am pleased to announce an end to the emergency laws, an end to regressive legislation that allows opposing voices to be stifled and an end to the ban on student participation in political parties.

“All our moves are the result of the government’s respect for the people’s aspirations and listening and responding to the pulse of the people. It is not cheap rhetoric or false promises; it is one of taking a brave moral stand.”

On the new liberties awarded to college students in line with the Government Transformation Programme, Najib said the government would amend Section 15 of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1974 to allow students to join political parties.

“We strongly believe in the maturity and wisdom of our undergraduates,” Najib said about the move.

However, this newfound freedom has a condition: students cannot bring partisan politics into the campuses.

Despite the bid to liberalise campus politics, the government would still appeal against the Court of Appeal’s Oct 31 decision which ruled that the UUCA was unconstitutional as it violated freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution.

Najib said: “The decision has far-reaching implications on the principles of law in the country”.

In April last year, four Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia students caught campaigning at the Hulu Selangor by-election — a breach of the law — failed in their challenge at the High Court that the university’s action violated their freedom of expression as guaranteed under the Constitution but won on appeal. Additional reporting by Michael Murty

Set as favourite

Email This