No legal basis to hold 9-year-old in remand, says activist

 Would Malaysian children be treated the same way, asks Yayasan Chow Kit founder Hartini Zainudin after four Myanmar children faced police action in an intimidation case.

Yayasan Chow Kit founder Hartini Zainudin said that under the Child Act 2001, the Myanmar boys should have been released.

PETALING JAYA:

There is no legal basis for a nine-year old Myanmar child to be held in custody, a child rights activist said while criticising a magistrate’s decision to deny bail for three other Myanmar children charged with criminal intimidation.

Yayasan Chow Kit founder Hartini Zainudin questioned if the authorities would have handled Malaysian children the same way.

“After 30 years in this work, I do not believe we would. We would call the parents, bring in welfare officers, mediate between neighbours, and use the Child Act as Parliament intended,” she said, as the legislation protected every child in Malaysia and had “no citizenship clause”.

“The way the state has responded to these children should trouble anyone who works in child protection.” she said.

On Friday, the magistrate’s court in Bukit Mertajam denied bail for the three Myanmar boys, two aged 11 and one aged 12 after they were charged with criminal intimidation of an elderly woman. However, the High Court later reversed the decision and allowed the boys to be released on bail.

They, and a nine-year-old boy, had been arrested on Oct 27, and were held in custody for four days.

“There is no lawful basis to hold a nine-year-old as a suspect,” said Hartini. She said the Penal Code provides that a child under 10 cannot commit an offence, and even upon conviction a child under 14 cannot be sent to prison.

She said under the Child Act 2001, the boys should have been released

She also said the children may not have understood the charges read to them, noting that although the court arranged for an interpreter, many Rohingya children do not speak Burmese.

Hartini said a child who does not understand a charge cannot meaningfully answer it.

She also questioned the media coverage of the case, and the use of photograph of the children being brought to court, publication of their street address and the detail that their families live next door to the complainant.

“Section 15 of the Child Act exists to prevent exactly this,” she said referring to the stipulation that restricts media reporting and publication regarding children involved in legal proceedings.

The three boys were jointly charged with threatening to hurt the woman using several objects, including a mop, an iron rod, a white fluorescent light tube and stones. - FMT