Rally can proceed but must steer clear of 3R issues: Police

Published on: Friday, June 20, 2025
Published on: Fri, Jun 20, 2025
By: Jonathan Nicholas Text Size: ACP Kasim advised that the rally be conducted peacefully and orderly, without provocation or disturbance to public order. Kota Kinabalu: The Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) will not obstruct the planned Gempur Rasuah Sabah 2.0 peaceful rally scheduled for this Saturday. However, organisers have been reminded to steer clear of sensitive issues involving race, religion and royalty (3R).
Advertisement Kota Kinabalu District Police Chief, ACP Kasim Muda, in a response letter to the organisers, advised that the rally be conducted peacefully and orderly, without provocation or disturbance to public order. Meanwhile, the organisers, a group known as Suara Mahasiswa UMS, described the police's response this time as 'unprecedented'. 'It should be normalised as a sign of respect towards the right to assemble and express, as guaranteed under the Federal Constitution,' the group stated. The rally is expected to begin at 1pm in front of Suria Sabah shopping mall, with participants marching to Lintasan Deasoka, Gaya Street, and continuing the demonstration through Sunday.
Advertisement Organisers are maintaining their demands, including firm action on the Sabah Water Department scandal, institutional reforms and suspension of individuals accused of corruption. Meanwhile, members of the public are advised to plan their journeys in advance tomorrow (June 21) due to temporary road closures in the city centre in conjunction with the 74th Official Birthday Celebration of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri. Kasim said several key roads would be closed from 5am to 10am to accommodate the official parade involving 80 contingents and estimated 10,000 participants at Padang Merdeka. 'The closures will affect five main routes leading to Padang Merdeka, namely Bulatan Bunga Raya, Bulatan Capital (Bandaran), Simpang Tiga Bukit Bendera, Jalan Dewan, and the Jalan Padang junction near KFC Bandaran,' he said in a statement. As a result, the KK Bypass will serve as the primary route for vehicles transporting parade participants, ministers, department heads and other invited guests. The full parade will begin along Jalan Dewan and Jalan Istana and end at Padang Merdeka, while Jalan Padang will serve as the designated parking area for official vehicles. The police also urged the public not to park their vehicles along the parade routes to prevent congestion and ensure the smooth flow of the event. 'We truly appreciate the cooperation and patience of the public to ensure the safety and success of this meaningful celebration,' Kasim added. For further enquiries, the public may contact the Traffic Investigation and Enforcement Division, Kota Kinabalu District Police Headquarters at 088-529288. * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available.
Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Focus Malaysia

an hour ago

• Focus Malaysia

'Report graft to MACC, PDRM first – not social media – to be entitled for whistleblower protection'

THE issue of whistleblower protection has recently become a topic of public attention, especially in the context of combating corruption. Unfortunately, there is widespread misunderstanding among the public regarding who qualifies for protection and the procedures that must be followed. Some believe that anyone with information about misconduct can apply for protection as a whistleblower but the reality is not that simple. Malaysia has specific legislation to protect whistleblowers from unfair retaliation, namely the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010. However, this protection is subject to certain conditions and procedures to ensure its effectiveness and prevent abuse. A common misconception is the belief that whistleblowers may disclose information publicly – such as to the media or social media – before applying for protection. This is incorrect. Under the law, information regarding misconduct must first be reported to an enforcement agency. If someone discloses the information publicly before making an official report, it may compromise their identity and the validity of the disclosed information. There is also the risk that such information may not be verified or could be misinterpreted, ultimately damaging the credibility of the case. Additionally, enforcement agencies cannot provide protection to whistleblowers who have 'exposed' themselves before making a formal report. Criteria for protection To obtain whistleblower protection, an individual must meet several conditions. Firstly, the report must be made to a legitimate enforcement agency such as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) or other relevant government bodies. Secondly, the report must be made in good faith and not out of malicious intent such as revenge or defamation. Another key condition is that the whistleblower must not be involved in the reported misconduct. Section 11(1) of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 clearly states that protection may be revoked if the whistleblower is found to be complicit in the misconduct disclosed. This is to maintain the integrity of the whistleblower and prevent abuses t the protection status as a 'shield' to cover up their own wrongdoing. Challenges encountered Despite existing laws, whistleblowers often face challenges in upholding the truth. Among them, whistleblowers are often labelled as 'informers' or 'traitors', especially if the offence involves their employer or organisation. Additionally, despite legal protections, there remains concern about threats or discrimination they may face directly or indirectly. In fact, many still do not understand the legal procedures to become a whistleblower and how they can apply for protection legally. The process for applying for whistleblower protection is clearly stipulated. An individual must report directly to a government enforcement agency such as MACC or PDRM. Once the report is received and meets the criteria set out in the Act, the whistleblower will be granted protection guaranteed by law. Forms of protection provided include: Confidentiality of identity: The whistleblower's identity will be kept completely confidential and will not be disclosed to any party, including during court proceedings. The whistleblower's identity will be kept completely confidential and will not be disclosed to any party, including during court proceedings. Legal immunity: The whistleblower is protected from civil, criminal or disciplinary action related to the report made. The whistleblower is protected from civil, criminal or disciplinary action related to the report made. Protection against retaliation: Any retaliation such as dismissal, discrimination or intimidation as a result of the report is strictly prohibited. Any retaliation such as dismissal, discrimination or intimidation as a result of the report is strictly prohibited. Protection for related individuals: Besides the whistleblower, protection is also extended to family members or individuals closely related to the whistleblower if they face risks due to the disclosure. Social responsibility, incentives As a responsible society, we must understand the role and responsibility of reporting corruption. Section 25 of the MACC Act 2009 stipulates that anyone who knows of the giving, receiving or offering of a bribe but fails to report it can be fined up to RM100,000 or imprisoned for up to 10 years, or both. Additionally, the government has since 2011 introduced cash reward incentives and recognition for civil servants who report corruption to MACC. These rewards are given based on the value of the corruption involved when their reports or complaints result in convictions in court. As of 2024, a total of 514 civil servants have received rewards exceeding RM1 mil under this incentive programme with the highest reward of RM100,000 given to a public officer for reporting corruption. The whistleblower protection law is an important tool in efforts to combat corruption and misconduct in this country. It provides confidence to legitimate whistleblowers to come forward without fear of retaliation. However, the existing Act still has weaknesses that need improvement to ensure more effective protection. Legal reform The Whistleblower Protection (Amendment) Bill 2010 (Act 711) was tabled for its first reading in the Dewan Rakyat on March 6. This amendment aims to further strengthen protection for whistleblowers who report misconduct, particularly in the public and private sectors involving corruption. It is expected to provide more comprehensive protection for whistleblowers, including protection against harmful actions and immunity from civil or criminal proceedings. This amendment is hoped to encourage more individuals to report misconduct without fear. Recently, the MACC and Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) expressed full support for efforts to improve this Act during a courtesy visit by TI-Malaysia president Raymon Ram to MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki. Awareness about the role, responsibilities, and protection of whistleblowers must be raised in society. The misconception that anyone can apply for protection without fulfilling the required conditions must be corrected to prevent misuse and abuse of the law. As concerned citizens, we must understand that whistleblowers play a critical role and that all support should be given to expose misconduct and uphold the integrity of institutions. With robust laws and public awareness of their responsibilities, efforts to combat corruption in Malaysia can be more effectively implemented. – June 20, 2025 Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin is the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commissions' (MACC) senior director (legal and prosecution division). The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.

Malaysiakini

an hour ago

• Malaysiakini

Group backs PN, urges Harapan to honour judicial reform pledge

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) has backed Perikatan Nasional chief whip Takiyuddin Hassan's call to amend Article 121 of the Federal Constitution and restore its original form. MCCBCHST stressed the need to safeguard judicial independence at all times. The council urged the government to carry out the promised...

Free Malaysia Today

2 hours ago

• Free Malaysia Today

The real roots of judicial power in Malaysia

In the English legal tradition, judicial power is understood as the authority of courts to adjudicate disputes, interpret statutes and common law, and provide remedies. It includes the power to review executive actions for legality and, in some cases, to develop the common law through precedent. However, English courts do not possess the authority to strike down legislation—a limitation that distinguishes their role from that of courts in constitutional democracies like Malaysia. Malaysia's judiciary, while inheriting many functions from the English system, is constitutionally empowered to go further. Our courts do not only interpret and apply the law but also possess the authority to invalidate legislation, constitutional amendments, or executive actions that contravene the Federal Constitution. This power is not derived from Article 4(1) or Article 121(1) alone, but fundamentally from the Oath of Office taken by judges—a jurisprudential foundation that has been underdeveloped and underappreciated since independence. Article 4(1) declares the constitution as the supreme law of the Federation. However, it does not, in itself, confer judicial power. Rather, it sets the constitutional framework within which all branches of government must operate. The true source of judicial power lies in the solemn Oath of Office undertaken by judges, which binds them to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. This oath is not ceremonial—it is constitutional in nature and substance. Similarly, members of the legislature and executive are also bound by their respective oaths to uphold the constitution. When any law, amendment or executive act violates Article 4(1), it is the judiciary's constitutional duty—rooted in their oath—to strike it down. This is not judicial activism; it is judicial fidelity to constitutional supremacy. The Federal Court's decision in Dato Yap Peng v Public Prosecutor (1987) exemplified this principle. In that case, the court struck down a legislative provision as unconstitutional, affirming its role as guardian of the constitution. In response, Parliament amended Article 121(1) in 1988, removing the explicit vesting of judicial power in the High Courts and instead stating that courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers 'as may be conferred by or under federal law'. This amendment was widely interpreted as a curtailment of judicial power. For over two decades, the legal community operated under the assumption that the judiciary's constitutional authority had been diminished. Yet this interpretation overlooked a critical truth: judicial power in Malaysia does not originate from legislative grace. It is constitutionally embedded through the oath of office and the foundational structure of the constitution itself. Calls to amend Article 121(1) to 'restore' judicial power—such as those made by a former law minister—are therefore misplaced. If the 1988 amendment was intended to strip the courts of their constitutional authority, it was a sterile move. Judicial power, like legislative and executive power, flows from the constitution and is anchored in the oaths taken by officeholders. No statutory amendment can override that constitutional reality. My own judicial tenure allowed me to explore and articulate what I call the 'Oath of Office Jurisprudence.' This framework situates judicial power within the broader architecture of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. It draws from established principles of judicial review and affirms that the judiciary's role is not to dominate, but to safeguard the constitutional order. Unlike the 'basic structure' doctrine developed in India, which courts have used to limit parliamentary power, Malaysia's oath-based jurisprudence avoids judicial hegemony while still providing robust constitutional protection. In my view, the use of the basic structure doctrine to challenge the constitutionality of laws which touch on shariah issues is flawed jurisprudence. In contrast, the oath of office jurisprudence offers a superior route to ensuring that constitutional functionaries and federal and state laws fall in line with the intentions of our founding fathers. Indeed, judicial hegemony—the idea that courts should wield unchecked power—was rejected as early as the Magna Carta in 1215. Our constitutional framers were equally cautious. They ensured that the responsibility to uphold the constitution rests not solely with the judiciary, but with all four pillars of the state: the executive, legislature, judiciary, and the Malay rulers. My contributions to this jurisprudence, including judgments such as Aluma Mark Chinonso, have helped crystallise the parameters of judicial power consistent with the constitution. Since 2017, a series of Federal Court decisions have reaffirmed the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, effectively burying the notion that judicial power was ever truly removed. It is time for Malaysian jurists to invest in developing this uniquely Malaysian jurisprudence. As the late Justice Gopal Sri Ram observed, the oath of office framework introduces a new dimension to the rule of law. It compels all branches of government to banish arbitrariness and act within constitutional bounds. It also offers a broader and more integrated foundation for constitutional review than the imported basic structure doctrine. If embraced, this approach could restore judicial review to its rightful place—not as a 'disabled creature with a thousand tongues and no teeth', but as a principled and effective check on arbitrary power. Doing so would strengthen the rule of law and advance the cause of social justice in Malaysia. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.