{"title":"Arbitrary Detention in Malaysia: Security Offenses (Special Measures) Act 2012","authors":"Eden H B Chua","doi":"10.1093/slr/hmaa011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Legislative erosion of basic human rights is not uncommon in Southeast Asia. The Malaysian government’s recent detention of 12 people under Security Offenses (Special Measures) Act 2012 for their alleged links to Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has renewed extensive calls from civil society groups for its total repealment. It targets security offenses by creating the powers of arrest without warrant followed by pre-charge detention for up to 28 days. It also removes the courts’ exclusive authority of adjudicating bail applications. To evaluate its value and relevance, this article reviews its fundamental operation and specifically looks at how the courts have attempted to interpret its most controversial provision. This article in the end suggests that while there is clearly the need for reforms, the main focus has to be on implementing safeguards that can help avert its misuse while also cautioning against its broad ambit.","PeriodicalId":43737,"journal":{"name":"Statute Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/slr/hmaa011","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statute Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmaa011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Legislative erosion of basic human rights is not uncommon in Southeast Asia. The Malaysian government’s recent detention of 12 people under Security Offenses (Special Measures) Act 2012 for their alleged links to Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has renewed extensive calls from civil society groups for its total repealment. It targets security offenses by creating the powers of arrest without warrant followed by pre-charge detention for up to 28 days. It also removes the courts’ exclusive authority of adjudicating bail applications. To evaluate its value and relevance, this article reviews its fundamental operation and specifically looks at how the courts have attempted to interpret its most controversial provision. This article in the end suggests that while there is clearly the need for reforms, the main focus has to be on implementing safeguards that can help avert its misuse while also cautioning against its broad ambit.
期刊介绍:
The principal objectives of the Review are to provide a vehicle for the consideration of the legislative process, the use of legislation as an instrument of public policy and of the drafting and interpretation of legislation. The Review, which was first established in 1980, is the only journal of its kind within the Commonwealth. It is of particular value to lawyers in both private practice and in public service, and to academics, both lawyers and political scientists, who write and teach within the field of legislation.