Five reasons why Pota is scary

By admin-s On Apr 7, 2015

(MMO) – If you are arrested, you cannot challenge your arrest in court. You cannot argue in court that your arrest is unlawful. No court can order your arrest to be stopped. And no court will be able to declare your arrest unlawful.

Last week I saw a tweet by a member of Parliament that the Prevention of Terrorism Bill was finally available for download from Parliament’s website. So I downloaded a copy and read through it. Because my reading preferences are messed up that way.

I’m not a legal expert. But I can read English (and Malay; if you’re so inclined you can download a Malay version of the Bill). And while I am in no way involved in anything that may be called terrorist-related, the Bill still gave me the chills.

Here are five reasons why the prospect of this Bill becoming law scares the shit out of me:

1. You can be arrested for up to two months (on suspicion alone)

Five pages in, I was reading Section 3. According to this Section, a police officer may arrest anyone without warrant if the officer believes there is reason to justify an investigation into that person.

Okay, this is not so unusual, in certain scenarios police officers can forego a warrant. Being able to arrest on the basis of the officer’s opinion alone, however, opens room for abuse. Because a lot of people are intimidated by the mere thought of being arrested.

But maybe it’s not so bad, because the arrested person must be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.

That’s when I read Section 4: if a police officer ranked Inspector or higher produces a written statement saying there is reason to believe the arrested person is involved in terrorist activities, the magistrate shall remand that person in police custody for 21 days.

Note the word “shall” which is how the Bill worded it — I am now wondering if the magistrate will be empowered to exercise judgment and discretion in evaluating the merits of that statement.

Anyway. By the end of this 21-day period, the arrested must be taken before a magistrate again.

At this point, if the public prosecutor signs a written statement saying there is enough evidence to hold an inquiry; or if a police officer ranked Assistant Superintendent or higher signs a statement saying “it is intended to hold an inquiry” into the case; then the magistrate “shall… order the person to be remanded in custody” for a 38-day period.

That’s a total of 60 days or so from the point of arrest up to the end of the second remand period — will the magistrate actually be informed of the reasons to believe the arrested person needs to be in custody? Doesn’t sound like it.