bobjots : redux

During the remand hearing, no one; including family members and the media; apart from the lawyers and the police were allowed in the courtroom and when they finally emerged after two hours, informed everyone that Nat had been remanded for four days despite the police attempting to get the maximum of fourteen days.

To the uninitiated, a remand order into custody is defined by Wikipedia as :

Action at arrest or arraignment

The second usage relates to the imprisonment of criminal suspects awaiting trial or sentencing. A prisoner who is denied, refused or unable to meet the conditions of bail, or who is unable to post bail, may be held in a prison on remand.

Reasons for being held in custody on remand vary depending on the local legal system, but may include:

• the suspect has been accused of carrying out a particularly serious offence
• the suspect having previous convictions for similar offences
• reasons to believe the suspect could leave the court's jurisdiction to avoid its trial and possible punishment
• reasons to believe the suspect may destroy evidence or interfere with witnesses
• the suspect is likely to commit further offences before the trial
• the suspect is believed to be in danger from accomplices, victims, or vigilantes

In most countries, remand prisoners are considered innocent until proven guilty by a court and may be granted greater privileges than sentenced prisoners, such as:

• wearing own clothes rather than prison uniform
• voting in elections
• being entitled to additional visiting hours per week
• not being required to complete prison-related work or education

Although remanded prisoners are usually detained separately from sentenced prisoners, due to prison overcrowding they are sometimes held in a shared accommodation with sentenced prisoners.

Remand can cause hardship and thus be a punishment for suspects. This can be quite difficult on those that have not been previously convicted of any crime and have not yet been proven guilty on the current case as it appears as though they are not "innocent until proven guilty."

Of course, in the Malaysian context, some of the above provisions may not apply.

The police also revised the story that they told us yesterday about Nat being investigated under Section 420 of the Penal Code and now informed the magistrate that he was being investigated under Section 8 of the Official Secrets Act; possession of ’secret’ documents published on the internet, which alleged that deputy Minister for Internal Security, Johari Baharum, was involved in the ‘fee-for freedom’ scandal (the alleged offending link and the text of Section 8 of the OSA is referred to in my previous post).

The lead counsel for Nat, Sivarasa Rasiah, had this to say outside the courtroom after the remand hearing :

We are revisiting 1998 - this is a political detention.

The remand serves no purpose except to put him (Nat) under duress.

He has given his full cooperation; they have taken documents, CD-Roms and computers from his office, home and car.

If the remand is for investigation, why continue to detain him when he has given everything? This is a ‘fishing’ expedition. There is clearly another agenda behind this.

This is purely an act of oppression. I want to go on record that his detention is political motivated.

More on this incident can be read from the Queen's account.

Personally, I am fully in agreement with Sivarasa. This IS an act of oppression.

Why was there a need to detain Nat in the first place unless the investigation had found sufficient evidence to charge him for any offence? Why deny holding Nat for at least 6 hours until a missing person's report was filed? Why detain him further for investigation after he had offered full cooperation? Why the change of story in regards to what he was actually being charged with?