NOV 27 — The High Court on Tuesday (Nov 26) ordered the Home Ministry to return all 172 seized Swatch-branded watches worth over RM64,000 — which were linked to Pride, otherwise known as the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights movement — to the Swiss watchmaker’s local company Swatch Group (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd.
High Court judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh said the Home Ministry’s search of Swatch stores or premises in May 2023 and seizure of the Pride watches were illegal.
Search by its very nature implies an act contrary to the will of the person whose premises is being searched. It must therefore be carried out in accordance with the law.
The governing law with regards to the search of the Swatch premises is the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) 1984 (Act 301).
Section 16 PPPA allows for search of premises with and without warrant.
Subsection (1) allows a Magistrate to issue a search warrant empowering a senior authorised officer to enter and search any premises where there is reasonably suspected to be found —
(a) a printing press kept or used in contravention of Section 3;
(b) any newspaper printed or imported or published in contravention of Section 5; or
(c) any prohibited publication.
Subsection (2) allows for a search of a premises without warrant whenever it appears to any senior authorised officer that there is reasonable ground to believe that there is concealed or deposited in any premises any prohibited publication, and that by reason of the delay in obtaining a search warrant the object of the search is likely to be frustrated.
The senior authorised officer may enter and search the premises as if he were empowered to do so by a warrant issued under subsection (1).
“Senior authorised officer” refers to —
(a) any police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent;
(b) any officer of Customs not below the rank of Superintendent;
(c) any officer of the Postal Services Department not below the rank of Senior Postal Officer,
(d) any other public officer declared by the Minister to be a senior authorised officer for the purpose of the Act.
“Prohibited publication” means any publication which has been prohibited under Section 7(1) and includes any copy, reproduction, extract or any translation, precis or paraphrase thereof.
Under Section 7(1), the Home Minister may in his absolute discretion by order published in the Gazette prohibit, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the “printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, circulation, distribution or possession” of publications with contents that are or likely to be prejudicial to public order, morality, security, public interest or national interest; or likely to alarm public opinion; or are or likely to be contrary to any law.
So the scheme of things for a search of premises under the PPPA is simple. There must be a search warrant. If without one, there must be reasonable belief of a prohibited publication in the premises. A prohibited publication is one that is prohibited by the Home Minister by an order published in the Gazette.
Without such an order, no publication is prohibited under the PPPA.
Justice Amarjeet Singh’s decision is a lesson on rule of law.
The authorities cannot simply sondol — apologies on the use of the word — into one’s premises.
