legal issues

Monday, May 05, 2014

Securities Regulation : Prospectus

Circumstances for refusal of registration of a prospectus:

The Securities Commission will not register a prospectus unless it is in its final/complete form and is accompanied by all required materials/documents.

Under Section 233 (1) CMSA, the Securities Commission reserves the right to refuse registration and return the prospectus if in its opinion–

(i) The Commission is of the opinion that the prospectus does not comply with any requirement or provision of the Act;

(ii) The issue of, offer for subscription or purchase of, or invitation to subscribe for or purchase, securities to which the prospectus relates does not comply with any other requirement or provision of the Act;

(iii) The Commission is of the opinion that the prospectus contains any statement or information that is false or misleading or that the prospectus contains any statement or information from which there is a material omission;

(iv) The issue, offer for subscription on purchase of, or invitation to subscribe for on purchase, securities to which the prospectus relates-

a) Requires the approval of the Commission under Section 212 CMSA and such approval has not been given; or

b) Does not comply with any term or condition imposed under sec. 212(5) CMSA.

(v) There has been a failure to comply with any term or condition in relation to an approval of a management company or trustee (in relation to unit trust scheme or prescribed investment scheme)

(vi) the Commission is of the opinion that the issuer has contravened any provision of the securities laws or the Company Act and that such contravention would cast a doubt as to whether the issuer is a fit and proper person to make an issue of, offer for subscription or purchase of, or invitation to subscribe for or purchase, any securities.

Moreover, if the issuer has violated any provision of the Company Act or securities laws, the Registrar can refuse to register the prospectus. If such violation of provision has lead to any doubt as to whether the issuer is properly issue, offer, subscribe or purchase of any securities, the Registrar can refuse to register the prospectus too.

Publication of prospectus before registration:

The Securities Commission is also entitled by the provision in Section 232(4)[1] of CMSA to publish a registrable prospectus for public information before its registration. This enables the general public to comment on the prospectus before its actual registration and issue. Section 245(5) stated that the publication under subsection (4) shall not indicate that the Commission recommends the securities or assumes responsibility for the correctness of any statements made or opinions or reports expressed in the registrable prospectus.

It increases opportunities for material issues to be identified before any offering under the prospectus. The provision enables implementation of a practice already carried out in many major capital markets where for example, prospectuses intended for registration are made available for feedback and comment on websites.

Can defective prospectus be cured?

Defects in a prospectus can be cured by the issuer of securities registering a supplementary prospectus under Section 238 of the CMSA.

As prescribed under section 238(1) of the CMSA, a supplementary/replacement prospectus must be registered with the Securities Commission when the issuer becomes aware that–

(a) A matter has arisen and information on that matter is required to be disclosed in the prospectus if the matter had arisen when the prospectus was prepared;

(b) There has been a significant change affecting a matter disclosed in the prospectus;

(d) The prospectus contains a statement or information from which there is a material omission.

The changes requiring a supplementary/replacement prospectus may consist of–

(a) Changes to the body of the original prospectus;

(b) Changes to experts’ reports included in the original prospectus; and/or

(c) Changes to information in supplementary prospectus (including new reports) previously registered for a particular prospectus.

If a person applies to subscribe for or purchase securities in a corporation and, before issue of securities, a supplementary prospectus is submitted to the Securities Commission for registration, then as soon as practicable after registration, the issuer must–

(a) Give a written notice to the applicant or other notices as may be specified by the Securities Commission –

(i) Advising the applicant that a supplementary/replacement prospectus has been registered by the Securities Commission;

(ii) Giving the applicant no less than 14 days from the date of receipt of the notice an opportunity to withdraw his application; and

(iii) Informing the applicant that, if he withdraws his application, the issuer will immediately pay him any money he has paid to the issuer on account of the application; and

(b) Ensure that the written notice is accompanied by a copy of the supplementary/ replacement prospectus.

For a supplementary shelf prospectus issued under the SC (Shelf Registration Scheme for Debentures) Regulations 2000 (SRS), the declaration by issuers is required to be made in the supplementary shelf prospectus during the period between the date of the shelf prospectus and the date of application to the Securities Commission for registration of the supplementary shelf prospectus.

The Securities Commission may, on the application of the issuer, allow a supplementary shelf prospectus to be registered without containing the following information, provided the issuer undertakes to deliver to the SC a price information sheet containing such information:

(a) Exact number of debentures;

(b) Price of the debentures; and

In this regard, the issuer should not issue the debentures until the supplementary shelf prospectus has been registered by the Securities Commission. The price information sheet containing the above information must accompany the shelf prospectus as updated by the supplementary shelf prospectus when issued to investors.

A shelf prospectus may provide an indicative utilisation of proceeds based on the proposed maximum amount of the debentures to be issued but the supplementary shelf prospectus should contain information on the actual utilisation of proceeds.

A summary advertisement for a supplementary/replacement prospectus must be published in a widely-circulated Bahasa Malaysia newspaper and English newspaper, where relevant, and should state the following:

(a) That a supplementary/replacement prospectus has been registered;

(b) The date of the supplementary/replacement prospectus;

(d) That any issue of securities to which the prospectus relates will only be made on receipt of an application form accompanying a copy of the supplementary/ replacement prospectus.

A supplementary/replacement prospectus should be legible and appear in type size of not less than eight-point Times. All pages in the supplementary/replacement prospectus must be numbered and any blank or partly blank pages should contain a statement that the page has been intentionally left blank.

What happens when a person subscribes for securities on the basis of a defective prospectus?

Under section 245(1) of the CMSA, the Securities Commission may order the issuer of the securities not to allot, issue, offer, make an invitation to subscribe for or purchase or sell further securities to which the prospectus relates, if;

(a) A prospectus does not comply with or is not prepared in accordance with any provision of this Act;

(b) A prospectus contains a statement or information that is false or misleading;

(d) An issuer has contravened any provision of the securities laws or the Companies Act 1965

245 (2) further stated that subject to subsections (3) and (4), the Commission shall not make an order under subsection (1) unless the Commission has given a reasonable opportunity to be heard to any affected person as to whether such an order should be made.

Criminal liability will attach to the person who authorises or causes the issue of a prospectus which contains false or misleading statements or material omissions.

Criminal liability for statement in prospectus

Under Section 47 of Company Act 1965, a person shall be guilty of an offence if any untrue statement or intention non-disclosure of prospectus is found. However, if the person can proves either that the statement or non-disclosure was immaterial or that he had reasonable ground to believe that statement was true or the non-disclosure immaterial up to the time of the issuance of prospectus. The person is being served for five years jail sentence or penalty of one hundred thousand ringgit if he is found guilty of an offence against the act.

Under section 246 (3) of the CMSA, a person is liable upon conviction for a fine not exceeding RM 3million or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

Civil Liability for misstatements in prospectus

Section 248 CMSA provides that if a person subscribes for securities on the basis of a defective prospectus, such person has the right to recover for loss or damage resulting from the false or misleading statement in prospectus against the issuer of securities and others involved in the preparation of the prospectus.

Under Section 46 of Company Act 1965, the person shall be liable to pay compensation to all people who subscribe or purchase any shares or debentures and they face loss or damage due to any untrue statement or willful non-disclosure in the prospectus. The person who is liable to pay compensation may include the director of the company at the time of the prospectus issuance or the person who authorized and named in the prospectus as director. Then, the person who is the promoter of the company or authorized or caused the issue of the prospectus shall be liable to pay compensation too.

However, there are several situations that no person shall be liable to pay compensation. If the person can proves that he is having consented to become a director of the company, he withdrew his consent before the issue of the prospectus, or it was issued without his authority. Besides, the no one is liable to pay the compensation if the prospectus is issued without the director knowledge and he gives a public notice after he is aware of its issue (Companies Act, 1965).

CASE LAW (Malaysia):

KIARA EMAS ASIA INDUSTRIES BHD v. TETUAN WONG-CHOOI & MOHD NOR [2012] 2 CLJ 438

The plaintiff engaged the services of the defendant firm of solicitors for the purposes of listing on the 2nd Board of the then Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (`KLSE'). The plaintiff was successfully listed but however brought this action against the defendant claiming that the defendant breached the terms of its appointment or negligently failed to exercise reasonable skill and care in its role as solicitors under the listing exercise. It was contended that the defendant failed to make full disclosure of material particulars as prescribed under the KLSE Listing Rules and Requirements relating to a charge, a shadow director and related party dealings in the prospectus that was done in the listing process. The omission to make such disclosure was the operative cause to the plaintiff being listed, albeit wrongly, and the subscribers misled by the omission to purchase the shares under the impression that the plaintiff was financially fit and sound when that was not the case.

JC Ahmad Nasfy Yasin held that:

“ Looking at the law and the evidence before this court, it is my finding that the duty to maintain the veracity of the content of a prospectus is owed by the company and its board of directors to the potential subscribers, as it is the company and its board that authorizes and caused the issue of the prospectus. Reference may be made to the following provisions of the relevant legislations. Section 42 of the Companies Act 1965 states:

The Registrar shall not register a copy of any prospectus if it contains any statement or matter which is in his opinion misleading in the form and the context in which it is included and unless:

(a) The copy signed by every director and by every person who is named therein as proposed director of the corporation or by his agent authorized in writing is lodged with the registrar on or before the date of its issue

Section 57 of the Securities Commission Act 1993 states:

(1) A person who acquires, subscribes for or purchases securities and suffers loss or damage as a result of any statement or information contained in a prospectus that is false or misleading, or any statement or information contained in a prospectus from which there is material omission, may recover the amount of loss or damage from all or any of the persons set out in paragraphs (a), (b)...

(a) The issuer and each director of the issuer at the time of the issue of the prospectus, for any loss or damage;

(b) a person who consented or caused himself to be named and is named in the prospectus as a director or as having agreed to become a director, either immediately or after an interval of time, for any loss or damage;

Clearly, in our case herein, if the plaintiff's directors are responsible for issuance of the prospectus, and if the information set out therein is wrong or misleading as alluded to by the plaintiff in its own claim, the injury and consequent damages/losses are due not to the defendant, but to the plaintiff through its directors for failing to take reasonable care.

CASE LAW (Singapore):

In Public Prosecutor v. Huang Sheng Chang[2], five directors pleaded guilty and were convicted in the District Court of Singapore on a charge, inter alia, that they being directors of a company caused a document to be sent out offering shares in the company to the public. They sent invitations to 2000 individuals and companies to join a exclusive club and take one share each in the company. The letter of invitation and its enclosures disclosed no information whatever about the company. The letter also did not disclose that one ordinary share of the company with a par value of (RM)5,000 had to be purchased at (RM)30,000, (that is) at a premium of (RM)25,000. In addition an individual was required to pay (RM)2,000 (in the case of a company (RM)3,000) described in the letter as the entrance fee. It was held by the District Court that the letter of invitation was an offer to the public to purchase shares in the company and was deemed to be a prospectus under s. 43 of the Act. It was further held that the letter did not comply with the requirements of the Companies Act as to the issuance of prospectuses under s. 39(4).

(2) Section 47 [s. 56] provides criminal sanctions for misstatement in a prospectus. A director may be criminally liable if he "authorized the issue" of a prospectus containing an untrue statement or wilful non-disclosure. The prosecution need only show that the statement was in fact false. A director may, however, avoid liability by proving either (a) that the statement or non-disclosure was immaterial, or (b) that he had reasonable grounds to believe and did up to the time of issue believe that the statement was true.

It may be mentioned that by s. 40 [s. 46] certain advertisements and by s. 43 [s. 49] certain documents containing an offer of shares may be deemed as prospectuses.

[1] The Commission may for public information publish the registrable prospectus submitted to the Commission before the registration of the prospectus under section 233.

[2] [1983] 2 MLJ xcvi

posted by Q-KHALIFA @ 9:04 PM 0 comments

In human rights theory, is there a right to assemble, march, protest and demonstrate? Discuss in the light of the "Peaceful Assemblies Act 2011"

The right to assemble, march, protest and demonstrate peacefully rests at the core of functioning democratic systems, and is closely related to other cornerstones of democracy and pluralism, such as freedom of expression and freedom of association. An assembly means the intentional and temporary presence of a number of individuals in a public place for a common expressive purpose. The rights to peaceful assembly and to freedom of expression are enshrined in the article 10 of the Federal Constitution[1].

The freedom of peaceful assembly, march, protest and demonstrate is associated with the right to challenge the dominant views within society, to present alternative ideas and opinions, to promote the interests and views of minority groups and marginalized sections of society, and to provide an opportunity for individuals to express their views and opinions in public, regardless of their power, wealth or status[2].

The protection of the freedom to peacefully assemble is crucial to creating a tolerant and pluralistic society in which groups with different beliefs, practices or policies can exist peacefully together. The Government should protect and facilitate the opportunity for people to assemble peacefully. To fail to do so would jeopardise the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of expression. The Government is under an obligation to protect and promote these rights. There should be no unnecessary restrictions on people’s rights to peaceful protest.

These rights are not absolute, however, because protest invariably involves groups of people with competing interests, including protestors, the individuals and organisations that are protested against, the police, journalists and bystanders. Only peaceful assemblies are protected. An assembly should be deemed peaceful if its organizers have professed peaceful intentions and the conduct of the assembly is non-violent.

Peaceful protest has not always been so quietly accepted by those in powers. As Martin Luther King, Jr once said that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. However, for most of human history, any form of protest against the status quo, including peaceful protest, was likely to be met with violence of one sort or another. For this reason, public demonstrations have only recently become common ways of registering disagreement with the government. In the past, overthrowing or radically changing a government was almost certain to involve bloodshed, so those opposed to the existing powers made sure to arm themselves in advance to prepare for revolutionary war.

As a fundamental right, freedom of peaceful assembly should, insofar as possible, be enjoyed without regulation. Anything not expressly forbidden by law should be presumed to be permissible, and those wishing to assemble should not be required to obtain permission to do so. A presumption in favour of this freedom should be clearly and explicitly established in law. The state’s positive obligation to facilitate and protect peaceful assembly. It is the primary responsibility of the state to put in place adequate mechanisms and procedures to ensure that the freedom is practically enjoyed and not subject to undue bureaucratic regulation. In particular, the state should always seek to facilitate and protect public assemblies at the organizers’ preferred location and should also ensure that efforts to disseminate information to publicize forthcoming assemblies are not impeded.

Article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees every citizen with the right to freedom of speech and assembly. In practice, Malaysia’s experience on many counts of people’s right to exercise their freedom of expression is limited and selectively based on the discretion of the government and its security institutions like the police. Restrictions are usually justified under the broad stroke of maintaining racial harmony and public order.

Malaysian Federal Constitution provides a rather weak provision for freedom of speech primarily as a result of amendments following the May 1969 clashes, known as the Sensitive Matters Amendment to allow Parliament to “impose on the above right, restrictions on eight grounds – public order, national security, incitement and offence, friendly relations with other states, contempt of court, contempt of Parliament, defamation, morality”. Several acts of law regulate the freedoms granted by Article 10, such as the Official Secrets Act, which makes it a crime to disseminate information classified as an official secret[3]. Under the Public Order (Preservation) Act 1958, the relevant Minister may temporarily declare any area where public order is seriously disturbed or seriously threatened to be a “proclaimed area” for a period of up to one month. The Police have extensive powers under the Act to maintain public order in proclaimed areas. These include the power to close roads, erect barriers, impose curfews, and to prohibit or regulate processions, meetings or assemblies of five persons or more. Other laws curtailing the freedoms of Article 10 are the Police Act 1967, which criminalises the gathering of three or more people in a public place without a licence, and the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, which grants the Home Affairs Minister "absolute discretion" in the granting and revoking of publishing permits, and also makes it a criminal offense to possess a printing press without a license. The Sedition Act 1948 makes it an offence to engage in acts with a "seditious tendency", including but not limited to the spoken word and publications.[4]

Recently in Malaysia, the Peaceful Assembly Act 2011 was passed by Parliament on 29 November 2011, after six amendments were made to the act in replacing the present legislative provision in section 27 of the Police Act 1967. However, the act was passed with no dissenting votes after the Opposition refused to take part in the debate and staged a walkout. The Peaceful Assembly Act 2011 is to allow citizens to organize and participate in assemblies peaceably and without arms. It seeks to allow citizens to organize and participate in assemblies peaceably and without arms, subject to restrictions deemed necessary and in the interest of public order and security. The Act introduces the concept of “interests, rights and freedoms of other persons”, with the police having to weigh such interests, rights and freedoms with that of the persons who wish to assemble.

However, this Act introduced several controversial and objectionable provisions. Among them are prohibitions of street protests, prohibition of organization of assemblies by persons below the age of twenty one years; prohibition of participation in peaceful assemblies of children below the age of fifteen years; Unduly heavy responsibilities and restrictions on organizers and assemblies; and excessive fines for non-compliance of the Act.

Clause 4 of the Act[5] makes it clear that the right to organize or participate in an assembly peaceably and without arms does not extend to non-citizens, an assembly held at any prohibited place and within 50 meters from the limit of the prohibited place. In the UK, Queensland and Finland, the legislation that govern public assemblies do not make a distinction between the right accorded to citizens and non citizens[6]. In the Act, however, is clearly stated that the right to organise or participate in an assembly does not extend to a non citizen. However, section 27 of the Police Act does not distinguish between citizens and non citizens. The Act therefore takes away the right of peaceful assembly from non citizens which was recognised by section 27 of the Police Act. The Act provides for an outright prohibition against an assembly held at any “prohibited place” and within fifty meters from the said prohibited place. No such prohibition appears in other jurisdictions which we consider as having a model piece of legislation.

The Peaceful Assembly Act 2011 also not extended to a street protest (which is a form of assembly in motion or procession already legally recognized in section 27 of the Police Act 1967) is prohibited. “Street protest” which is defined in Paragraph 3 to mean; “an open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes”.

Paragraph 4(1) of the Act imposes an outright ban on street protests. The current position is that if the police issue a license under Section 27 (2) of the Police Act, 1967, a “street protest” is permitted. Hence, the new provision in this “reforming” Act make it worse by totally banning such types of assemblies.

This means that, under this Act, only assemblies that are not “street protest” are permitted. However, such an assembly in motion is permitted in most if not all of the jurisdictions which we would consider as having a model piece of legislation. There have been several street protests which were peaceful in Malaysia, for instance, the Bar’s Council Walk for Justice in 2007.

The clause also provides that a person below age 21 cannot be an organizer while a child below the age of 15 cannot participate in an assembly. Any person who recruits or brings a child to an assembly or allows a child to an assembly is also deemed to commit an offence, and upon conviction can be fined up to RM20, 000. Section 4 of the Act prohibits a person below the age of twenty one years to organise an assembly and the participation of a child below the age of fifteen years in an assembly other than an assembly specified in the Second Schedule.

The regulation of the participation of children is restrictive and contrary to our international obligations under the Convention of the Right of the Child (“CRC”) where Malaysia is a signatory. On 6 June 2010, Malaysia withdrew its reservations to Articles 1, 13 and 15 of the CRC, thus allowing children "the freedom to have their say, and the right to form associations and assemble peacefully". Minister of Women, Family and Community Development, Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil had said on the same day that the government would give children the freedom to have their say and the right to form associations and to assemble peacefully. She said the move was in line with the recognition given to children's rights as they would be the future leaders of the nation[7].

The Act also stipulates that the organizer of an assembly must ensure the assembly is in compliance with the law and does not commit any act or make any statement that could promote ill-feeling, discontent or hostility among the public nor disturb the public tranquility, while a participant should adhere to the orders given by the police or organizer to conduct the assembly orderly.

Clause 8 of the Act also sets out the responsibilities of the police, where a police officer may take measures deemed necessary to ensure orderly conduct of the assembly, in accordance with the Act or any other written law. In other jurisdictions, restrictions and conditions may be imposed on public assemblies. In the UK, even though the words 'as appear to him necessary to prevent such disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation' are stated in the Act, the police may only impose conditions based on date, time and duration, place and manner. In Finland and Queensland, conditions may be placed on payment of clean-up costs, any inherent environmental factor, and cultural or religious sensitivity.

However, in the Peaceful Assembly Act 2011, the OCPD is given wide discretionary powers to impose any restrictions other than those specifically mentioned above as he deems necessary or expedient. Under Clause 14, an officer in charge of a police district is required to respond to a notification of assembly within 12 days upon receipt of the notification; he also needs to respond to organizers, any restriction and condition to be imposed. In the UK, notification is not needed for a public assembly. Notification is required for a public procession in which 6 days notice is to be given before the date of the procession. In Queensland, the arranger of an assembly shall notify not less than 5 business days. In Finland, the arranger of an assembly shall notify the local police at least 6 hours before the meeting. The Act further provides for late notification if the arrangement of the meeting does not cause significant disruption to public order. Under the Peaceful Assemblies Act 2011 , written notice of at least 30 days must be given to the police. Hence, spontaneous gatherings are not permitted. The notification period of 30 days is unduly long and not in line with international norms. Further, the Act ignores the possibility of an immediate public assembly or a spontaneous assembly.

Clause 15 sets out the conditions and restrictions that may be imposed by the officer in charge of the police district such as date, time and duration, and place of assembly, manner of the assembly and conduct of participants during assembly. The Act, empowered a police officer to arrest, without warrant, any organizer or participant who refuses or fails to comply with any restriction and condition imposed. In Finland, the powers of the police are spelt out extensively in the Assembly Act. Section 20 states where necessary, the police may, before or during the event, issue orders or instructions on the arrangement of a public meeting or a public event for the purpose of maintenance of public safety or security; the prevention of damage to health, property or the environment or the reduction of the damage to the environment; the safeguarding of the rights and interests of bystanders; and the ensuring of the free flow of traffic. Furthermore, in sections 4 and 19, it clearly provides for the positive obligations of the police in promoting and safeguarding the exercise of freedom of assembly[8].

In Queensland, the powers of the police are spelt out in the Police Powers Responsibilities Act 2000, where the police may give directions requiring a person to either leave the regulated place or be within the regulated place for a reasonable time limit or move from a particular location for a specified period of time[9]. In the UK, the powers of the police to arrest without warrant subject to certain circumstances are stated in sections 12(7) and 14(7) of the Public Order Act 1986. The powers of the police are spelt out clearly and published to the public. The UK Human Rights Act 1998, particularly section 3 requires the police to interpret and apply their powers in a manner which is compatible to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Section 21(2) of the Act provides that the police officer, in exercising the power to disperse an assembly may use all reasonable force. The lack of public disclosure of the standard operating procedure employed by the police, such as how it handles crowd control or demonstrations evokes distrust in the public as to how it will apply this provision. The extent of the exercise of the police’s reasonable force should be clearly identified. It is also important to establish the positive obligations of the police in promoting and facilitating all peaceful assemblies[10].

CONCLUSION

The introduction of Peaceful Assemblies Act 2011 replacing the present legislative provision in section 27 of the Police Act 1967 recognizes the spirit of and the respect for human rights. However, the Peaceful Assemblies Act 2011 imposes too many restrictions and conditions for the public instead of facilitating freedom of assembly. Peaceful public assemblies provide an avenue for the public to express themselves on issues that are of concern and at the same time peace and stability are paramount and that public order needs to be maintained at all times.

As mentioned above, some of the provisions under the Act impose too many restrictions and give too much discretionary powers to the police, thus undermining the rights of the public to organise or participate in peaceful assemblies.

The government should amend some provisions in the act that are[11]:

· To include a clearer distinction can be made between the definition of an”assembly” which includes procession and that of “street protest”.

· The extension of the right to assemble peacefully without arms to non-citizens as they too have the right to express themselves and to be heard.

· A review of the prohibition against any assembly within 50 meters of any prohibited places as such prohibition is impractical and unrealistic in most cities and towns.

· To allow the appeal on restrictions and conditions imposed by the police to be made to the court instead of to the Minister.

· To reconsider the provisions on the participation of children in the light of our treaty obligations under the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC).

· To review Clause 13 to put in place a co-operative model which would allow the police and the organizer of public assemblies to discuss and arrive at a consensus on matters relating to the assembly for the purpose of facilitating the assembly in line with the objectives of the Act.

· To incorporate the provisions of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials under Part V of the Act which deals with enforcement.

· To ensure full, and not just reasonable, access of the media in public assemblies under Clause 24.

· To review the notification period of 30 days or to provide for exceptions in cases where it is not feasible or not practicable to meet the requirement of 30 days;

· To include a provision to allow external parties such as the Commission, the Bar Council and other relevant statutory bodies to monitor public assemblies.

The freedom to assemble, march, protest and demonstrate and to take part in a peaceful assembly is of such importance that a person cannot be subjected to a sanction, so long as this person does not commit any reprehensible act on such an occasion. In instances in which demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence, it is important for the public authorities to show tolerance toward peaceful gatherings if freedom of assembly is not to be deprived of all substance. The most important thing is, the law must be close to international standards, while the reform agenda is implemented and democracy is promoted, to avoid unnecessary political controversy and friction.

[1] Article 10(1)(b) provides that all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, subject only to such restrictions as Parliament may impose by law as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of security of the country or public order.

[2] Http:// www.osce.org/odihr, “Handbook on Monitoring Freedom of Peaceful Assembly”.

[3] http://cijmalaysia.org/miniportal/2010/09/article-10-of-the-federal-constitution

[5] Peaceful Assembly Act 2011

[6] Malaysian Bar's Memorandum on Peaceful Assembly Act, Thursday, 24 November 2011

[7] ibid

[8] ibid

[9] ibid

[10] ibid

[11] Suhakam: peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 must not impose restriction on the Rights of everyone to assemble peacefully, Thursday, November 24, 2011

posted by Q-KHALIFA @ 8:59 PM 0 comments

"Legal Study"

Emansipatif, Liberatif Dan Pencerahan

Issues