Nota : Ini adalah tulisan berdasarkan kuliah yang diberikan oleh Dato Prof Dr Shad Faruqi disamping tambahan yang lain yang ada dalam simpanan PG. Moga ianya bermenafaat untuk semua pelayar. Gunakan ia untuk kebaikan kepada negara bukan menjahanamkan negara. Nak menegur, tak perlu menentang atau memaki hamun kerajaan. Cara baik pun boleh. Ini pun mungkin salah satu cara teguran iaitu memberikan pendedahan tentang hak.
1. Hak untuk berkumpul adalah di bawah perlembagaan artikel 10(1)(b).
10. Freedom of speech, assembly and association
(1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4)-
(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) all citizens have the right to form associations.
(2) Parliament may by law impose -
(a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence;
(b) on the right conferred by paragraph (b) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order;
(c) on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality.
(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.
(4) In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under Clause (2) (a) , Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.
2. Hak untuk berhimpun adalah dengan selamat tanpa senjata. Hak ini adalah bergantung kepada sekatan iaitu tidak melibatkan keselamatan,ketenteraman dan moral. Artikel ini tidak pula menyebut tentang perarakan atau piket. Mungkin kerana berkumpul termasuklah pergerakan.
3. Samada untuk memasukkan sekatan atau tidak bukanlah pada mahkamah tetapi adalah parlimen. Dalam kes Kelantan V Nordin Salleh (1992) kuasa ini tidak diberi kepada kerajaan negeri dan hanya kepada Parlimen.
4. Hak untuk berkumpul,berarak dan piket adalah ciri-ciri asas sebuah kerajaan demokratik liberal.
5. Hak untuk berpiket terdapat di bawah seksen 40(1) Industrial Relations Act.1967.
40. Picketing
(1) Without prejudice to section 39, it shall be unlawful for one or more persons acting on his or their behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an employer in furtherance of a trade dispute to attend at or near any place:
Provided that it shall not be unlawful for one or more workmen to attend at or near the place where the workman works and where a trade dispute involving such workman exists only for the purpose of peacefully –
(2) obtaining or communicating information; or
(ii) persuading or inducing any workman to work or abstain from working,
and subject to such attendance being not in such numbers or otherwise in such manner as to be calculated –
(a) to intimidate any person;
(b) to obstruct the approach thereto or egress therefrom; or
© to lead to a breach of the peace.
(2) Any officer or employee of the trade union to which the workmen referred to in the proviso to subsection (1) belong, may be present with such workmen solely for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline and ensuring that such workmen comply with the requirements of the said proviso.
(3) Any person who acts in contravention of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit, or to both.
6. Kanun Keseksaan.
Seksen 141 menyatakan bila terdapat 5 atau lebih orang berkumpul di tempat awal untuk melakukan perkara berikut adalah melakukan kesalahan.
141. Unlawful assembly
An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is -
(a) to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Legislative or Executive Government of Malaysia or any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant;
(b) to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process;
(c) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence;
(d) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
(e) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
Explanation - An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
7. Akta Polis.
Seksen 26 – kuasa mendiri sekatan jalanraya di tempat awam.
Seksen 28 – mengawal permainan muzik di tempat awam.
Seksen 30 – mengawal bendera,sepanduk di tempat awam
Seksen 31 –kuasa perintah berkurong.
Seksen 27- semua perhimpunan,perjumpaan dan perarakan perlu permit dari ketua polis daerah. Permohonan mestilah dalam masa 14 hari dan dibuat oleh 3 orang penganjur.
KPD boleh melulus atau tidak berdasarkan keselamatan dan menjaga ketenteraman.
Seksen 27(5) – perlanggaran syarat semua dinggap menyertai perhimpunan haram.
27. Power to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions
(1) Any Officer in Charge of a Police District or any police officer duly authorised in writing by him may direct, in such manner as he may deem fit, the conduct in public places in such Police District of all assemblies, meetings and processions, whether of persons or of vehicles and may prescribe the route by, and the time at, which such assemblies or meetings may be held or such procession may pass.
(2) Any person intending to convene or collect any assembly or meeting or to form a procession in any public place aforesaid, shall before convening, collecting or forming such assembly, meeting or procession make to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police District in which such assembly, meeting or procession is to be held an application for a licence in that behalf, and if such police officer is satisfied that the assembly. meeting or procession is not likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to excite a disturbance of the peace, he shall issue a licence in such form as may be prescribed specifying the name of the licensee and defining the conditions upon which such assembly, meeting or procession is permitted:
Provided that such police officer may at any time on any ground for which the issue of a licence under this subsection may be refused, cancel such licence.
(2A) An application for a licence under subsection (2) shall be made by an organisation or jointly by three individuals.
(2B) Where an application is made jointly by three individuals, the police officer to whom the application is made shall refuse the application if he is satisfied that the assembly, meeting or procession for which a licence is applied is in actual fact intended to be convened, collected or formed by an organisation.
(2C) Where an application is made jointly by three individuals, the police officer issuing the licence shall specify in the licence, the names of those persons as licensees.
(2D) No licence shall be issued under subsection (2) on the application of an organisation which is not registered or otherwise recognised under any law in force in Malaysia.
(3) Any police officer may stop any assembly, meeting or procession in respect of which a licence has not been issued or having been issued was subsequently cancelled under subsection (2) or which contravenes any of the conditions of any licence issued in respect thereof under that subsection; and any such police officer may order the persons comprising such assembly, meeting or procession to disperse
(4) Any person who disobeys any order given under the provisions of subsection (1) or subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.
(4A) Where any condition of a licence issued under the provisions of subsection (2) is contravened, the licensees shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) Any assembly, meeting or procession-
(a) which takes place without a licence issued under subsection (2); or
(b) in which three or more persons taking part neglect or refuse to obey any order given under the provisions of subsection (1) or subsection (3),
shall be deemed to be an unlawful assembly, and all persons attending, found at or taking part in such assembly, meeting or procession and, in the case of an assembly, meeting or procession for which no licence has been issued, all persons taking part or concerned in convening. collecting or directing such assembly, meeting or procession, shall be guilty of an offence.
(5A) In any prosecution for an offence under subsection (5) of attending, being found at or taking part in an assembly, meeting or procession which is an unlawful assembly, it shall not be a defence that the person charged did not know that the assembly, meeting or procession was an unlawful assembly or did not know of the facts or circumstances which made the assembly, meeting or procession an unlawful assembly.
(5B) In any prosecution for an offence under subsection (5) of attending or being found at an assembly, meeting or procession which is an unlawful assembly, it shall be a defence that the presence of the person charged came about through innocent circumstances and that he had no intention to be otherwise associated with the assembly, meeting or procession.
(5C) For the purposes of subsection (5), where it appears from all the circumstances relating to an assembly, meeting or procession that it was convened, collected or directed by or with the involvement, participation, aid, encouragement, support or connivance of an organisation, every member of the governing body of the organisation shall be deemed to have taken part or been concerned in convening, collecting or directing the assembly. meeting or procession unless he proves that he did not know nor had any reason to believe or suspect that the assembly, meeting or procession was going to take place or, if he knew or had reason to believe or suspect as aforesaid, he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the assembly, meeting or procession from taking place or, if it was not reasonably within his power to so prevent, he had publicly objected to or dissociated himself from the convening, collecting or directing of the assembly, meeting or procession.
(6) Any police officer may, without warrant, arrest any person reasonably suspected of committing any offence under this section.
(7) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the Officer-in-Charge of a Police District to issue a licence under subsection (2) may within forty-eight hours of such refusal appeal in writing to the Commissioner or Chief Police Officer; and the decision of the said Commissioner or Chief Police Officer thereon shall be final.
(8) Any person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than two thousand ringgit and not more than ten thousand ringgit and imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
(8A) Sections 173A and 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code shall not apply in respect of an offence under this section.
8. Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri.
Seksen 3 - menteri boleh menghalang perhimpunan dan mesyuarat di tempat awam.
Seksen 47 – YDP boleh mengistiharkan kawasan keselamatan dan menghalang kemasukan tanpa permit.
9. Undang-undang pencerobohan.
Disatu tempat persendirian adalah terpulang kepada pemiliknya untuk membenar atau tidak suatu perhimpunan atau perjumpaan. Pencerobohan adalah perbuatan jenayah.
10. Berkumpul di tempat persendirian tidaklah kebal dari sudut undang-undang ketenteraman. Dalam kes di England Thomas V Sawkins (1935),jika terdapat sangkaan bahawa perjumpaan akan menyebabkan ketenteraman pihak polis boleh masuk ke tempat tersebut. Di Malaysia kuasa adalah pada seksen 27A Akta Polis.
27A. Power to stop certain activities which take place other than in a public place
(1) Where any activity takes place on or in any land or premises which do not constitute a public place and-
(a) the activity is directed to, or is intended to be witnessed or heard or participated in by, persons outside the land or premises, or is capable from all the circumstances of being understood as being so directed or intended; or
(b) the activity attracts the presence of twenty persons or more outside the land or premises; or
(c) the activity is likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to excite a disturbance of the peace,
any police officer may order the persons involved in the activity to stop the activity and may order all persons found on or in or outside the land or premises to disperse.
(2) Any person who disobeys any order given under the provisions of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) Where three or more persons neglect or refuse to obey any order given under the provisions of subsection (1), the activity concerned shall be deemed to be an unlawful activity, and all persons taking part or concerned in the activity, or in organising or directing the activity, shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), where it appears from all the circumstances relating to an activity that it was organised or directed by or with the involvement, participation, aid, encouragement, support or connivance of an organisation, every member of the governing body of the organisation shall be deemed to have taken part or been concerned in organising or directing the activity unless he proves that he did not know nor had any reason to believe or suspect that the activity was going to take place or, if he knew or had reason to believe or suspect as aforesaid, he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the activity from taking place or, if it was not reasonably within his power to so prevent, he had publicly objected to or dissociated himself from the organising or directing of the activity.
(5) Any police officer may, without warrant, arrest any person reasonably suspected of committing any offence under this section.
(6) Any person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than two thousand ringgit end not more than ten thousand ringgit end imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
(7) Sections 173A and 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code shall not apply in respect of an offence under this section.
11. Dalam kes Datuk Yong Teck Lee V PP (1992) percubaan dibuat di Mahkamah dengan menyatakan peruntukan seksen 27(5) dan 27(8) akta polis adalah tidak mengikut perlembagaan artikel 10 telah gagal.
12. Kes Datuk Yong Teck Lee.
Plaintif adalah seorang ahli dewan undangan Sabah yang telah dilantik. Beliau telah mengaku tidak bersalah dalam tahun 1990 atas dua tuduhan menyertai suatu perarakan yang tidak sah di Kota Kinabalu. Beliau telah menfailkan saman pemula ini satu setengah tahun kemudian untuk:(a) suatu deklarasi bahawa s 27(8) Akta Polis 1967 (‘Akta itu’) adalah ultra vires Perlembagaan Persekutuan oleh sebab ia meperkara 8(1) dan 10(1) kerana ia mendiskriminasikan secara tidak adil orang seperti plaintif; dan(b) suatu deklarasi bahawa ss 27(2) dan (5) Akta itu adalah ultra vires Perlembagaan Persekutuan oleh sebab ia melanggar perkara 10(1)(b) kerana seksyen yang dinyatakan bersifat melarang dan bukan bersifat membatas.
Diputuskan:
Diputuskan, menolak permohonan itu:
(1) Di bawah s 27(2), pemohon untuk lesen mesti memuaskan pegawai polis bahawa perhimpunan, mesyuarat atau perarakan itu tidak memudaratkan keselamatan atau ia tidak akan menimbulkan kekacauan keamanan. Apabila pegawai polis berpuas hati, lesen itu akan dikeluarkan. Seksyen itu tidak bersifat melarang. Ia adamemudahkan dan mengawal dan dirancang untuk mesegala keperluan perkara 10(2). Oleh itu, ia tidak ultra vires Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
(2) Di dalam s 27(5)(a), niat adalah penting dan di bawah sub-s (5)(b), seseorang yang berada di dalam perhimpunan yang tidak sah tetapi dalam situasi yang ikhlas mempunyai suatu pembelaan. Oleh itu, seksyen itu tidak ultra vires Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
(3) Undang-undang yang mendiskriminasikan boleh diterima jika undang-undang itu ‘munasabah’ atau ‘dibenarkan’. Perkara 8(1) memberi seseorang individu hak mendapat layanan yang sama dengan individu yang lain dalam keadaan yang sama. Ia tidak melarang diskriminasi dalam layanan punitif di antara satu kelas individu dengan satu kelas yang lain di mana terdapat perbezaan dalam keadaan kesalahan yang telah dilakukan.
Seseorang mesti bertanggungjawab atas akibat yang semestinya berpunca dari pekerjaan, kedudukan, taraf atau status. Kesemua ahli dewan undangan akan mendapat layanan yang sama dengan orang yang lain di dalam kelas itu. Adalah jelas bahawa denda minima RM2,000 yang dikenakan oleh s 27(8) mungkin bertujuan mengahli Parlimen dari melanggar undang-undang itu. Tujuan Akta itu adalah untuk tidak menggalakkan perhimpunan atau perarakan yang tidak sah. Oleh itu, terdapat hubungan yang jelas. Arahan untuk hukuman yang berlainan untuk kesalahan yang sama berdasarkan keadaan setiap kes tidak melanggar prinsip kedi sisi undang-undang.
13. Dalam kes Ketua Menteri Sabah sabjek dituduh kerana menyertai perhimpunan haram dan tidak mengindahkan arahan KPD untuk bersurai. Sabjek didenda RM 2,000 atau gagal 2 tahun penjara. Akibat dari itu beliau telah di pecat dari keahlian dewan. Beliau merayu tindakan tersebut melanggar artikel 8. Mahkamah menyatakan hanya orang yang sama kelas perlu dilayan dengan sama.
14. Semakan mahkamah (judicial review).
Dalam kes Chai Choon Hon V KPD Kampar (1986) kebenaran diberikan tetapi ceramah tidak boleh menyentuh isu bahasa kebangsaan. Mahkamah memutuskan ini melanggar perlembagaan artikel 10(1)(a)..
15. Kes Chai Choon Hon.
Facts:
In this case the appellant had applied for a licence to hold a DAP solidarity dinner and lion dance in a public place. The first respondent issued the licence but imposed seven conditions, two of which the appellant sought to impugn on the ground that they were unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect in that they abridged the right of freedom of speech guaranteed under article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution. One of the conditions restricted the number of speakers to seven only and part of the other forbade the speeches to touch on political issues. The learned trial judge held the latter condition pertaining to speeches touching on political issues to be an unreasonable restriction in violation of the right of freedom of speech but held the former restricting the number of speakers to be valid. The appellant appealed.
Holdings:
Held there does not appear to have been any valid reason for the restriction imposed on the number of speakers within the time limit granted in the licence, that is from 5pm to 11.30pm, and the particular condition was unreasonable in the circumstances as the police had the means to deal with any infringement of the time frame specified in the licence under the provisions of s 27 of the Police Act, 1967.
16. Keputusan berbeza dapat dilihat dalam kes Madhavan Nair V PP (1975).
Kes Madhavan Nair.
Facts:
The applicants had been charged with contravention of a condition of a licence to convene a public meeting, that is, that no reference should be made to the results of the MCE examination and the status of Bahasa Malaysia as the national language of the Federation Counsel for the applicants had argued that the condition imposed was ultra vires article 10 of the Federal Constitution The learned magistrate decided to refer the matter to the High Court.
Holdings:
13. Dalam kes Ketua Menteri Sabah sabjek dituduh kerana menyertai perhimpunan haram dan tidak mengindahkan arahan KPD untuk bersurai. Sabjek didenda RM 2,000 atau gagal 2 tahun penjara. Akibat dari itu beliau telah di pecat dari keahlian dewan. Beliau merayu tindakan tersebut melanggar artikel 8. Mahkamah menyatakan hanya orang yang sama kelas perlu dilayan dengan sama.
14. Semakan mahkamah (judicial review).
Dalam kes Chai Choon Hon V KPD Kampar (1986) kebenaran diberikan tetapi ceramah tidak boleh menyentuh isu bahasa kebangsaan. Mahkamah memutuskan ini melanggar perlembagaan artikel 10(1)(a)..
15. Kes Chai Choon Hon.
Facts:
In this case the appellant had applied for a licence to hold a DAP solidarity dinner and lion dance in a public place. The first respondent issued the licence but imposed seven conditions, two of which the appellant sought to impugn on the ground that they were unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect in that they abridged the right of freedom of speech guaranteed under article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution. One of the conditions restricted the number of speakers to seven only and part of the other forbade the speeches to touch on political issues. The learned trial judge held the latter condition pertaining to speeches touching on political issues to be an unreasonable restriction in violation of the right of freedom of speech but held the former restricting the number of speakers to be valid. The appellant appealed.
Holdings:
Held there does not appear to have been any valid reason for the restriction imposed on the number of speakers within the time limit granted in the licence, that is from 5pm to 11.30pm, and the particular condition was unreasonable in the circumstances as the police had the means to deal with any infringement of the time frame specified in the licence under the provisions of s 27 of the Police Act, 1967.
16. Keputusan berbeza dapat dilihat dalam kes Madhavan Nair V PP (1975).
Kes Madhavan Nair.
Facts:
The applicants had been charged with contravention of a condition of a licence to convene a public meeting, that is, that no reference should be made to the results of the MCE examination and the status of Bahasa Malaysia as the national language of the Federation Counsel for the applicants had argued that the condition imposed was ultra vires article 10 of the Federal Constitution The learned magistrate decided to refer the matter to the High Court.
Holdings:
Held:
(1) if the condition imposed had contravened article 10 of the Federal Constitution, it was clear that no such condition could be imposed;
(2) in this case, however, the condition was not in contravention of article 10 of the Federal Constitution and therefore the police had powers under s 27 of the Police Act, 1967, to impose the condition.
17. Seksen 27 akta polis hanya memberi kuasa kepada polis untuk mengawal perhimpunan di tempat awam tetapi tidak pada tempat persendirian.
18. Definisi tempat awam boleh dilihat di bawah seksen 2 ISA dan seksen 3 Akta Tafsiran. Walau bagaimanpun peruntukan di bawah akta tafsiran lebih terpakai.
"public place" includes every public highway, street, road, bridge, square, court, alley, lane, bridle way, footway, parade, wharf, jetty, quay, public garden or open space, and every theatre, place of public entertainment of any kind or other place of general resort to which admission is obtained by payment or to which the public have access;
19. Dalam kes Patto V CPO Perak (1986) KPD mendapat arahan dari CPO untuk tidak meluluskan permit. Tindakan ini dikatakan menyalahi kuasa.
Kes Patto.
Facts:
In this case the appellant applied to hold a solidarity dinner and lion dance in a public place on 30 August 1984. The applications were made to the OCPD, Kampar, Perak (the third respondent). The appellant received a letter at 4.30pm on 30 August 1984 from the third respondent informing him that his applications had been forwarded to the Perak Contingent Police Headquarters for consideration by the first and second appellants and that after consideration the applications had been refused. The appellant brought an action for declarations that the first respondent who was the licensing authority under s 27(2) of the Police Act, 1967, did not himself consider the applications and that the applications had in fact been considered by the first and second respondents who had no authority to do so. The learned trial judge dismissed the appellant’s claim. The appellant appealed.
Holdings:
Held allowing the appeal:
(1) the third respondent as the licensing authority under the provisions of s 27(2) of the Police Act, 1967 had abdicated his functions by transmitting the applications for consideration and determination by the first and second respondents;
(2) the first respondent is the appellants authority to entertain an appeal against the refusal of the licence but in this case he purported to act at first instance by considering and determining the original applications, thereby depriving the appellant of his statutory right of appeal;
(3) the refusal of the licences applied for by the appellant was therefore made by the wrong authority;
(4) the intimation to the appellant of the refusal of the applications was made in a wholly unreasonable period of time so as to preclude any appeal by him against it.
No comments:
Post a Comment