Safeguards Whilst Articles 5, 9, 10, and 13 in Part II of the Federal Constitution provide for fundamental liberties covering liberty of the person, prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement, freedom of speech and association and rights to property, Article 149 of the Constitution provides for derogations from those rights in legislation enacted in response to threats to public order or security.216 As long as the elements in article 149 are made out, and the judgments in Mohd Ezam’s case217 remain undisturbed, such security legislation will be deemed valid notwithstanding that it is inconsistent with the four Articles above that provide for fundamental liberty. Article 151 of the Constitution imposes an obligation on the authority acting under any law for preventive detention to inform the person detained of the grounds of their detention and the allegations of fact on which the order is based, (subject to the requirement not to disclose facts whose disclosure would in its opinion be against the national interest) and further to give the detainee an opportunity to make representations against the order as soon as possible to an Advisory Board constituted under Article 151(2) whose views are not binding on the Minister. Counter-Terrorism Legislation – Further Developments The Anti-Money Laundering Act 2001 was debated in Parliament in early 2001. It was published in the Gazette on 5 July 2001. The date is significant in that it preceded the events 215 Article 40, CRC. The circumstances in which these rights can be derogated from are if ‘action has been taken or threatened by any substantial body of persons, whether inside or outside the Federation’: (a) to cause, or to cause a substantial number of citizens to fear, organised violence against persons or property; or (b) to excite disaffection against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any Government in the Federation; or (c) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or other classes of the population likely to cause violence; or (d) to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of anything by law established; or (e) which is prejudicial to the maintenance or the functioning of any supply or service to the public or any class of the public in the Federation or any part thereof; or (f) which is prejudicial to public order in, or the security of, the Federation or any part thereof; and the specific law recites that it was adopted for the purpose of stopping or preventing that action. 217 Mohd Ezam Mohd Nor & Ors v Menteri Dalam Negeri & Anor [2003] 2 CLJ 459. The Federal Court had held that the right to consult counsel could be postponed at the discretion of Police so as not to interfere with 216 103