Government spying on TMJ unacceptable

DAP Johor is deeply concerned by the claim that the Tunku Mahkota of Johor, Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim, is under surveillance by the Special Branch.

Yesterday, Tunku Ismail claimed that his phone is being tapped and his movements were monitored by the Police.

The Inspector-General of Police and Home Minister must provide a sastisfactory answer to this allegation.

Tunku Ismail should not be spied on just because he occasionally expresses some views not shared by the Federal Government.

Indeed, the government should not spy on citizens because of their political activities or views.

In 2012 and 2014, I asked parliamentary questions about the laws that provided the Government powers to spy on telecommunications. In her reply to me in 2014, Nancy Shukri, de factor Minister of Law, said that the police are able to intercept communication on the approval of the Public Prosecutor if there is any information related to an offence.

Section 116C of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 27A of the Dangerous Durgs Act 1952, Section 11 of the Kidnapping Act 1961, Section 43 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, and Section 6 of the Security Offences (Special Measures) 2012 provided such powers to the Public Prosecutor to empower the police to intercept communication.

But, according to Nancy, “since 2009, no communication interception was done involving politicians.”

In 2012, when answering a similar question of mine, the then Minister of Information, Communications and Culture, Rais Yatim, said that Section 252 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 gives power to a public prosecutor to allow law enforcement and investigative agents to perform a lawful interception on the condition that these communications might contain relevant information for the purpose of an investigation or offence under the Act.

As such, I believe there are no legal provisions for the Special Branch to tap the communications of Tunku Ismail and/ or politicians.

We call on the Government to come clean on this.

Share this article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Harmonising ESG practices

In the 1970s, Milton Friedman talked about the purpose of a corporation. He argued that a corporation had only one purpose — to make profits for its shareholders. For over…
Read More