
|
FAQs:
Preamble IMPACT Do we need a separate offence for committing "terrorist acts"? No,
there are sufficient legislation in place to take care of "terrorism"
and "terrorist acts". For example, Ma'unah group stole army's
weapon in Grik, and the offenders were all charged under Penal Code
Section 121 Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting the waging
of war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, a Ruler or Yang di-Pertua
Negeri. Under Section 121, it covers at least three elements, namely,
if the purpose or intention is:
There are definitely sufficient legal provisions to cover other offences such as possession of firearms, causing serious hurt to person and damaging property. There is no need to include a special section on terrorism and terrorists act, especially when the definition brings more confusion instead of clarity. As citizens speaking out about social issues, are we committing "terrorist acts"? Most likely if we refer to the definition in the Select Committee's report. The Select Committee has defined "terrorist act" to mean an act or threat of action within or beyond Malaysia where the act or threat:
The wide definition of "terrorist act" in the Penal Code may result in well meaning social action be perceived as terrorist act. For example, civil societies do hold dialogues with government agencies to bring about effective implementation of policies and legislation. However, under the above definition that act may be deem to be an attempt to "influence the Government of Malaysia" and hence be classified as a "terrorist act". Is
the power to intercept communications for terrorism offence or eaves
dropping? There is high chance that individual privacy maybe infringed. The Select Committee's amendment seems to give full powers to the Public Prosecutor to "detain, intercept or listen to any conversation by telecommunications". There is a huge reliance by the Public Prosecutor on the police to provide the evidences but what happens if sometimes they are incorrect? There
is no check and balance on the quality of evidences given. The powers
to decide on the interception of communications must rest not on Public
Prosecutors but on High Court judges as they have the capacity and legal
knowledge to decide. In the event of an interception, evidences or results
must be reported at all times to an independent body, perhaps an "interception
of communications commission". FAQs:
Preamble Related Resources (in PDF format): |
| WAO is a registered society
with tax exemption status under Registrar of Societies. WAO is a member of
the Joint Action Group against Violence Against Women and an affiliate
member of the National Council of Women's Organisations and the Malaysian
Aids Council. copyright © 2000. WAO. |