IT is easy to lose focus on the kind of news that really matters when newspaper headlines are constantly splashed with Covid-19 vaccination updates and political articles, which demonstrate the inability of this country’s politicians to agree on anything amid a potential fourth wave of infections.

Despite the repetitive articles, and the information fatigue it produces, this news still matters due to a lack of transparency among those in power.

Yet, there was one piece of news that may have escaped the attention of many this week. It concerned the grave injustice and blatant abuse of police power that was inflicted on Mitheswaran A/L Kumar and his family.

The 18-year-old was wanted by the police on suspicion of possession of methamphetamine. The police visited at his house on February 23 intending to arrest Mitheswaran.

He was not home when the police arrived and yet, bizarrely, handcuffed and arrested his brother Nisant Raj A/L Kumar for no apparent reason.

He was brought to a random location by the police, from where they called Mitheswaran, instructing him to come over. Mitheswaran arrived and was subsequently handcuffed, arrested and brought to the Bukit Mertajam police station along with his brother.

Mitheswaran was remanded for three days under Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for drug possession. However, this allegation is flimsy at best because Mitheswaran’s family was initially informed that five grammes of methamphetamine was found in Mitheswaran’s possession, only for that claim to be revised by the police themselves to only 0.5 grammes when the family probed further.

Even if there is a case to be made, in which Mitheswaran is liable to drug possession, the remand period of three days that was granted by the magistrate’s court was intended for the police to conclude their investigation and to lay charges if there are substantial grounds and evidence to charge him.

Yet events took a dive from there. The family was informed at the end of the three-day remand period that Mitheswaran would be further remanded for six days under section 457 Penal Code for housebreaking. In this case, Mitheswaran had been chain remanded, or in Malaysian jargon, tukar gari.  

The act of chain remand is a direct breach of a person’s right to justice. It prevents one’s ability to seek legal counsel and his ability to engage with law enforcement officials, and is open to abuse by law enforcement.

Chain remand occurs when a person, whose remand period granted by the magistrate’s court has expired, is almost immediately re-arrested by the police for a different or similar offence.

This is performed by the police to ensure that the accused remains in “possession” for whatever reason without any reasonable justification.

In Mitheswaran’s case, the police ought to give a proper explanation as to why there was a speedy switch of focus, from implicating Mitheswaran for drug possession to housebreaking.

Setting aside the notion of human rights, the practice of chain remand is also a direct violation of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which regulates criminal proceedings.

Under the CPC, courts can only grant a first remand order of no more than four days, and only if the police need more than 24 hours to investigate an alleged offence before laying charges.

For an offence that is punishable with more than 14 years of imprisonment, the total remand period the magistrate court can grant is 14 days.

Yet, under the practice of chain remand, this rule can be completely circumvented by constantly re-arresting an individual and continually applying for a remand order.

One example was in the case of Krishnan Suppiah, who was remanded for three weeks (21 days) through six remand applications.

There are bound to be instances of abuse of power in a long remand period, as the individual being held is at the mercy of police. This is also why ill-treatment and torture cases are a natural corollary of chain remand.

Mitheswaran’s mother, Priscilla Devi, had also confided to the media that there are dark spots on his son’s hand, and she claimed that it was because of police torture, adding that her son had acted under duress when signing documents without understanding their content.

What is most distressing with Mitheswaran’s story is that, after the two remand orders, he was again re-arrested under the repressive Prevention of Crime Act, which gives more power to the police, allowing them to detain an individual without trial for up to 60 days.

Despite the harsh criticism that chain remand has received, it remains “lawful” in Malaysia because there exists no provision to safeguard an individual from being arrested and subsequently re-arrested.

The purpose of a remand order is to allow police more time to conduct proper and swift investigations. Yet, under the concept of chain remand, the police are afforded the leisure to not investigate diligently, but abuse the remand process to detain the person indefinitely.

Chain remand is an abhorrent police practice and negates the civil liberties of all Malaysians. – April 18, 2021.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.