THE UNJUSTIFY REMAIN UNJUSTIFY
September 5, 2008
I will go against the Internal Security Act even if Ahmad Ismail has been detained under the Internal Security Act.
This is because a rightful act cannot justify the unjustifiable. Robin Hood had still commited robbery even despite sharing the proceeds with those in need.
So there is no way for me to compromise a detention without trial, even if there’s a good cause.
And this explains why I am also against the Sedition Act.
I condemn absolutely any seditious statement which causes disharmony in a multiracial society.
I also condemn the provisions under the Sedition Act which gives the authority such wide powers for them to prosecute almost anyone on their will.
Read Section 2 (e) and (f) carefully. It is cited in my previous entry. It somehow suggest that the sections give the authority an absolute power to prosecute.
Let me give you some examples.
We can’t question the “Malay Supremacy” because it is likely to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between Malays and non-Malays.
We can’t discuss about the “New Economic Policy” because it would likely question the special rights of Malays.
We can’t even ask a review on the “Quota System in the education system” because it would be likely to question again the special rights of Malays.
One blogger claimed that I am misleading. He said that if my points are valid, then everyone will be in prison.
I agree that there is such a possibility for everyone of us to be behind bars, and THAT is how dangerous ithe Act is.
And remember, Malaysia do practice “selective prosecution“. Or else Chua Soi Lek wouldn’t have been caught red handed and yet freed, but not Anwar.
Furthermore, the blogger claimed that “it must be used only when applicable“. So, who decide when it is applicable? My question is, are we practicing a rule of law, or are we practicing a rule of people?
There are so many uncertainties in the Sedition Act. It has to be either the Act would be amended as to limit the powers bestowed, or it would have to be repealed at once.
The law is already bad enough as it is.
Penang Umno backs Ahmad Ismail
Sep 5, 08 4:10pm
All 13 Umno divisions in Penang today supported embattled Bukit Bendera Umno chief Ahmad Ismail over his stand not to apologise for making racist remarks against the Chinese community
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/89166
What ksk n his Gerakan going to do about this ?
[...] Internal Security Act This is a crossfire to The Voice of Politics: The Unjustify Remain Unjustify. [...]
I have crossfire to your blog, at http://goodfromfar.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/internal-security-act/.
Please continue your blogging.
VOP, you over generalized and over simplified.
I agreed with direngray – ISA is not a bad law but should not be abused (based on http://goodfromfar.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/internal-security-act/)
ISA need to be amended and applied on specific acts only. ISA is necessary for terrorism, but not necessary for certain purposes that it is used for now.
For example, on deviant teachings, Syariah laws can be used, not ISA.
Reply to Direngay and H’ng,
Well, I now spending time to read the books wrote by the former ISA-detainee, also authored by the detainee’s wife.
I am now reading some of the books, which has been authored by the ISA-detainees, and also the spouse and children of ISA-detainees.
I hope I have time to blog on this issue in more details, and that need time for my result.
Let me declare my interest here. I am a member of Amnesty International, since 2002, and we are against the ISA.
Read the Act clearly. Beside Section 8 to 8D (the provision of detention without trial), other clause has been overlapped with Penal Code.
That’s mean with or without ISA, the accused still be charged under Penal Code.
Then let us look at statistics then we will realize that beside Section 8, none of the section under ISA has been used widely by police.
Further, the judicial review has been prohibited.
So, I don’t see any practicality, in maintaining such a bad law.
Thank you H’ng for reading my blog.
That’s why I suggest that ISA need to be reviewed and provisions must be clear stated in the reviewed Act to prevent abuse of power.
I still believe that misuse and/ or abuse is the fundamental problem which need to be tackled/ solved.
Even if ISA is abolished and the Government came out with some other very good law to secure the internal security of Malaysia, but it is abused, the good law remains a bad law.
My question is, if the public thinks that the lawmakers are making the bad law, why do the public still elect them again and again?
Planning is one thing, implementing is another thing. You could have a good planning but bad implementation. In my personal point of view, this applies to law too.