Recalling the “Undur Najib” protest in front of the Sogo Shopping Complex on August 1 last year, where 29 mostly young protesters were arrested, Azmi said those detained (including one of his students) should not be investigated under Section 124 B of the Penal Code for activities that are deemed to be detrimental to parliamentary democracy.
Azmi said there were no violent displays by the protesters to justify the usage of Section 124 B, which also deals with detrimental activities with an element of violence.
“You cannot really say, by any stretch of the imagination, that appearing in front of Sogo with placards saying ‘Undur Najib’ is violent.
“You have all these people saying, it’s unconstitutional because he’s an elected PM. No, actually he’s an elected MP. He’s not an elected PM.”
Azmi was speaking at the Public Forum on Section 124 B Penal Code and Parliamentary Democracy, organised by the Bar Council at the Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium here today.
The amendment, which was tabled in 2012 by then de-facto Law Minister Nazri Aziz, introduced new sections to the Penal Code to deal with offences that used to be dealt with under the Internal Security Act 1960 (Act 82), but with modifications.
The modifications empower the authorities to take action not only against individuals but also print and electronic media practitioners.
Section 124B states that anyone who is involved in an “activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy” can be imprisoned to a term that may extend to 20 years while those attempting to do so can be imprisoned up to 15 years.
Opposition and civil right movements have condemned the amendments to the Penal Code.
Azmi said the MPs as those who are elected by the people have the power to oust the PM in Parliament under the Constitution. The MPs are the ones the protesters were trying to reach.
“So here’s democracy 101: when we elect people, we elect MPs and then whoever has confidence of the House becomes PM. That’s in the Constitution.
“So it’s perfectly within our democratic system for people to say we don’t like this PM any more, please step down.
“We can’t do anything about it. We cannot force him to step down, but our MPs, who should be listening to us, can because they can pass a vote of no-confidence against him and he can then step down.
“So how is that threatening parliamentary democracy? If we don’t tell our MPs what we want, how are they supposed to know? Are they supposed to just get it in a dream?
“How else are we supposed to get our feelings across? It is perfectly legitimate to want the PM to resign. I don’t see any problem with that whatsoever. But they (the government) do.”
Meanwhile, the another speaker at the forum, law professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, slammed the amendments, saying that they were unconstitutional.
He said even the word “national security” and “parliamentary democracy” are not defined well in the law.
“As far as it is concerned, it (the 124B Penal Code amendments) are intended to protect national security. The provision itself is flawed and, therefore, becomes entirely unconstitutional.”
Lawyer and DAP MP Gobind Singh Deo, said he had for years, since Nazri tabled the amendment bills in April 2012, been asking in vain for a definition of “activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy” as it was never properly defined.
“If you have words that are so broad in meaning and leave it to a judge to decide, then has Parliament done what it was supposed to have done?”