Lawyers slam use of Emergency Ordinance against snatch thieves

By Boo Su-Lyn

May 11, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, May 11 — Lawyers today slammed the police's use of the Emergency Ordinance (EO) against two suspected snatch thieves, saying the crime does not warrant a law historically enacted to deal with the 1969 race riots.

Last Thursday, the police detained two suspects, aged 20 and 22, under the Emergency Ordinance due to lack of evidence for their suspected involvement in 300 snatch theft cases reported in the Klang Valley.

The Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance was enacted in 1969 to deal with the May 13 riots allowing detention without trial but is still in effect till today.

“The Emergency Ordinance shouldn’t be used at all,” said Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan.

“It's detention without trial, like the ISA. They can't defend themselves,” he explained.

Although civil society groups have called for the repeal of the EO along with the ISA (Internal Security Act), the government has remained adamant about keeping the laws, saying that they will only be reviewed in due time.

"The EO is meant to arrest and prevent crimes which according to the police are difficult to prove in court," lawyer Richard Wee told The Malaysian Insider. "How can snatch theft be categorised as difficult to pin down?"

"While we cannot allow someone to be detained without trial... we can appreciate it in certain extreme cases, like against terrorism, communism, May 13," added Wee.

Another lawyer Philip Koh agreed, saying "Emergency legislation, which is legacy from laws which are propagated to deal with communist insurgency, ought not be used for crime, unless there’s elements of terrorism that threatens the foundation of the state."

Wee voiced a suspicion among legal circles that police are taking the “easy way out” by detaining suspects under the EO instead of going through the normal legal procedures of investigating a crime and charging suspects.

“They (the police) are taking the easy way out by preparing a report, sending it to the Home Minister... the Home Minister will review,” he said. “If the Home Minister feels it’s necessary to put someone under EO... the Home Minister will issue an order, and they are arrested under EO.”

Unlike typical criminal procedures which involve time-consuming court proceedings, detaining someone under the EO can be executed fairly quickly, hence possibly encouraging the police force to use it to avoid trial, said Wee.

“Now there is a trend with the police force. They are inclined towards detaining people who they believe to be someone with propensity towards crime under EO,” Wee added.

When asked what should be done in the event there is a lack of evidence to charge suspects, the 36-year-old lawyer said the government should strengthen the police force instead of depriving people of their rights to defend themselves in court under the EO.

“In a situation where there’s lack of evidence, we strengthen the police,” said Wee. “They (the police) must be properly trained... and put more CCTVs (on the road).”