Most people who read the news about Deputy IGP's statement that the burger protest in front of Ambiga's house had not broken any law, knew it could not be true, though it would be difficult to quote any by-laws without doing some research.
As expected, according to a Malaysiakini report, at a press conference with other Pakatan representatives, Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng said,
"he could find no law that allows the ‘burger protest’ in front of Bersih co-chairperson S Ambiga’s house, but has instead found three laws that render such acts illegal."
He quoted Section 46 of the Street, Drainage and Building Act that bars the placing of “obstructions” in public places, with a penalty of a fine up to RM500 on the first offence.
He added that according to Section 110 of the Road Transport Act, anything placed on a road or interfering with the flow of traffic shall be liable of a fine not exceeding RM1,000.
Lim (left) also quoted Section 80 of Local Government Act that compels local authorities to take action to “remove, put down and abate” public nuisances.
A comment found in Malaysiakini adds to it:
Odin In addition to MP Lim Lip Eng's input, here is another piece of information that shows the bias against Akka Ambiga. According to FMT's report posted on 16 May, lawyer K Shanmuga has said that the protesters violated the Licensing of Hawkers and Stalls (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur) 1989. The by-laws stipulate that hawkers are allowed to operate only at certain locations, that DBKL does not issue roving licence, and that bylaw 11(1) states that a stall licence should be in respect of a specified site, while by-law 22(2) states that itinerant hawkers cannot remain stationary in any place except when selling food. FMT has sent an email to DBKL regarding this matter, but no response has been forthcoming. That's only to be expected, isn't it?
Link
As expected, according to a Malaysiakini report, at a press conference with other Pakatan representatives, Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng said,
"he could find no law that allows the ‘burger protest’ in front of Bersih co-chairperson S Ambiga’s house, but has instead found three laws that render such acts illegal."
He quoted Section 46 of the Street, Drainage and Building Act that bars the placing of “obstructions” in public places, with a penalty of a fine up to RM500 on the first offence.
He added that according to Section 110 of the Road Transport Act, anything placed on a road or interfering with the flow of traffic shall be liable of a fine not exceeding RM1,000.
Lim (left) also quoted Section 80 of Local Government Act that compels local authorities to take action to “remove, put down and abate” public nuisances.
A comment found in Malaysiakini adds to it:
Odin In addition to MP Lim Lip Eng's input, here is another piece of information that shows the bias against Akka Ambiga. According to FMT's report posted on 16 May, lawyer K Shanmuga has said that the protesters violated the Licensing of Hawkers and Stalls (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur) 1989. The by-laws stipulate that hawkers are allowed to operate only at certain locations, that DBKL does not issue roving licence, and that bylaw 11(1) states that a stall licence should be in respect of a specified site, while by-law 22(2) states that itinerant hawkers cannot remain stationary in any place except when selling food. FMT has sent an email to DBKL regarding this matter, but no response has been forthcoming. That's only to be expected, isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment