KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 29 — The High Court here will decide on January 22 on an application for immediate release by six Chinese nationals who are detained under the Prevention of Crime Act (POCA) 1959.
The six Chinese nationals, who are all men by the name of Jiang Xiang, Wang Jun Cheng, Li Jiang, Luo Hong Bin, Lei Meng and Yu Xiang Yu. were detained in a special operation by the police in connection with online gambling syndicates.
Judicial Commissioner Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid fixed the date after hearing submissions by both parties on the habeas corpus application filed by the six detainees.
They were arrested by the police in October and were remanded for 59 days from November 3.
“I think both parties have interesting points that have not been raised before the court, we will fix another date for the decision,” said Azhar.
Earlier, lawyer Gobind Singh Deo, representing the six applicants, submitted that the POCA act used against his clients did not apply to foreigners, but limited to only Malaysians.
“If we look the (POCA) act, there is no dispute that it was enacted pursuant to Article 149 of the Federal Constitution and need to comply with Article 151 under the constitution.
“Referring to the Article 151(1)(b), we would like to point out that the law is clearly limited to Malaysian citizens,” he said adding that the POCA law could not be applied to the six as they did not possess Malaysian identity card.
In response to this, senior federal counsel Zulkifli Abdullah, who appeared for the respondents, namely Inspector Wayandiana Abdullah, the Kuala Lumpur magistrate’s court, the Inspector-General of Police and the government, said Article 151(1)(b) should not be read in isolation and must be read with other provisions.
“The POCA could also be applied to non-Malaysians as there was nothing in the preamble of the act saying that the law could not be used against non-citizens,” he said.
In the application which was filed separately, the six were seeking for an order that their arrest and detention under the act had no basis, was not compliance with the procedure and mala fide.
They are also seeking for an order that their detention did not fall under the scope of the act and that the act is not applicable to them. — Bernama
