Why table Sosma extension again after rejection, MP questions

 

Klang MP Charles Santiago has questioned the motive behind the re-tabling in Parliament of the motion to extend the effective period of a subsection of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) for another five years.

Subsection 4(5) of Sosma, which expires on July 31, grants the police special powers to hold individuals arrested and detained under the act for up to 28 days.

“Why bring this up for debate when it has already been voted down during the previous parliamentary session, unless it is a veiled threat against dissidents?

“And why use the pre-trial detention under Sosma when the police could use the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and other acts to arrest and investigate?” Charles (above) questioned in a statement today.

The motion to extend the enforcement of Subsection 4 (5) of Sosma was not approved when tabled in Parliament earlier this year in March, after a vote which saw 85 MPs agree while 86 disagreed.

A motion to quash the House’s previous decision to reject the extension was approved on July 20, to enable the Home Ministry to re-submit the motion to extend the enforcement of Subsection 4(5).

In tabling the motion, Home Minister Hamzah Zainudin had said criminal offences under the First Schedule of Sosma were very serious and complex which could threaten public safety and order and they required a long investigation period.

Restricts civil liberties

Charles said in his statement today that indefinite detention without trial is open to abuse, and the possibility of torture under custody.

He said such “preventive administrative detention” also restricts civil liberties such as freedom of speech, expression and movement, as well as denying detainees the right to free trial.

The right to free trial is not just an internationally recognised human right, he said, but it is also a cornerstone of democracy and protects the rights of accused persons throughout the judicial process.

“As such, why is Hamzah trying so hard to bring back a provision, which is seen as a coercive measure by the government? Isn’t this autocratic and regressive?

“Unless the government has an agenda of using indefinite detention without trial to keep a lid on dissent, it should scrap the re-tabling of the provision under Sosma,” Charles said. - Mkini