ISA release of Hindraf 5 – first post-March 8 test for MCA, MIC, Gerakan


The refusal of the Home Minister, Datuk Syed Hamid Albar to release newly-elected Selangor DAP State Assemblyman for Kota Alam Shah and four other Hindraf leaders, P. Uthayakumar, V. Ganabatirau, R. Kenghadharan and T. Vasantha Kumar from Internal Security Act (ISA) detention should bring Malaysians back to reality – that the second Abdullah administration has not really heard the voice of the people in the March 8 political tsunami for change towards a more democratic, accountable, just and progressive Malaysian society.

Hamid’s explanation is completely unacceptable. He said: “We cannot simply react to political parties’ calls. We have to give priority to public safety and peace and will give due consideration only if there is no threat to national security.”

This is because the ISA detention of the five Hindraf leaders last December – purportedly linking them with “terrorist organizations” which have proved to be completely baseless – was the result of calls by Barisan Nasional component parties, particularly Umno and MIC, and had nothing whatsoever to do with national security.

Having myself being detained twice for a total of 35 months under the ISA, I can vouch that ISA detentions had been used as political instruments to suppress dissent which have no relationship whatsoever with national security – and the ISA detention of the five Hindraf leaders fall directly under this category!

The first Cabinet meeting last Wednesday created all-round national disappointment as there were no positive indications that the second Abdullah administration would be a reformist one, to fulfill the Prime Minister’s many reform pledges – though four years late.

Proposals for far-reaching judicial reforms to address the two-decade long subversion of the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary came up against a stonewall in the Cabinet – where even the unsatisfactory and inadequate proposal by the de facto Law Minister, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim that the government should apologise to the judges who were victims of the 1988 judicial crisis could find no acceptance.

Hamid’s refusal to release Manoharan, Uthayakumar, Ganabatirau, Kenghadharan and Vasantha Kumar from ISA detention despite the very clear desire of the Malaysian voters is the second solid proof that Abdullah’s claim that he has heard the “message” of the people in the March 8 political tsunami – that “Point made and point taken” – is clearly not the case.

After the March 8 political tsunami, the other Barisan Nasional component parties, particularly MCA, MIC and Gerakan had blamed UMNO for their electoral debacle – declaring that they would no longer stay silent against the arrogant, undemocratic and unjust policies and attitudes forced on them by Umno Ministers and leaders.

Let the immediate and unconditional release of the Manoharan and the other four Hindraf leaders from ISA detention be the first test of MCA, MIC and Gerakan post-March 8 political tsunami:

• firstly, whether the MCA, Gerakan and MIC Ministers and Deputy Ministers are prepared to ask the Cabinet next Wednesday to end the ISA abuse and detention of the five Hindraf leaders; and

• secondly, whether MCA, Gerakan and MIC national leaderships are prepared to submit a joint memorandum to the Prime Minister for the immediate and unconditional release of the Hindraf five from ISA.

  1. #1 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 30 March 2008 - 12:03 am

    ABOLISH THE ISA?

    Post 9/11 many countries have adopted similar legislation. The U.S. Department of State has stopped calling for the repeal of this Act by the Malaysian government the way it did before 9/11. In fact the U.S. took a page out of Malaysia’s experience in combating terrorism when it passed its own equivalent now known as the U.S. Patriots Act and the Real ID Act. It even provided for the suspension of habeas corpus.

    The Brits introduced the legislation to British Malaya to help it fight terrorism which formally ended in 1960. The Brits are still fighting terrorism in Ireland and still have their Internal Security Act. Singapore has used its Internal Security Act to detain Islamic terrorists. Canada has introduced its own Anti-Terrorism Bill as many countries have done – post 9/11.

    Now that the world is fighting the worst form of terrorism, and against enemies who look upon death as a welcome release, it may not be wise to call for a complete repeal of a piece of legislation which has served us well during the Emergency years. We were then fighting a form of terrorism which did not espouse martyrdom – unlike today. Today the world is changed forever and we need to look at this kind of legislation through the colored prism of that singular event we refer to as 9/11.

    The original Internal Security Act had safeguards against abuse built into the Act which the BN government through their two-thirds control of the country’s Parliament saw it fit in 1985 to remove by way of amendments i.e. the all important right of judicial review. We had politicians since who fought the elections using campaign promises for a more free society and a more liberated and liberal media – only to claim to ‘see the light’ when they won the elections, making a token release of prisoners detained without charge and trial. Others are left to languish in prison to await the results of their rehabilitation into ‘more responsible’ citizens.

    Rather than abolish the ISA we should ‘abolish’ those who use it for purposes unintended by Parliament when it passed the law. It is important that we not throw the baby out with the bath water.
    Suffice it to say that the “evil” lies not in the legislation but in its arbitrary use and abuse.

  2. #2 by i_love_malaysia on Sunday, 30 March 2008 - 12:06 am

    Tun M only pointed out something why the King is angry. [deleted]

  3. #3 by mauriyaII on Sunday, 30 March 2008 - 12:09 am

    The MCA, MIC, GERAKAN and the other component parties in the BN are impotent even to speak up when injustice is seen to be done and HAS BEEN DONE TO THE HINDRAF 5.

    [deleted].

    Are the eunuchs of the MCA, MIC, GERAKAN AND THE OTHER COMPONENT PARTIES OF THE BN too emasculated even to speak up?

  4. #4 by MWong on Sunday, 30 March 2008 - 1:30 am

    Hamid and Pak Lah are certainly still in their slumber land..

    1) “React to political parties’ calls?”

    What bout the ONE MILLION SIGNATURE petition? It is the voice of the rakyat, and it should be the thing that matters most!

    2) “give priority to public safety and peace…”

    If the HINDRAF Leaders are deemed to be as scary, threatenin’, and destructive as what BN has described, why did the ISA detainee has not only won, but won with big majority? Remb, the ballot is the expression of the rakyat voice.

    Are we not concern bout our own safety n peace to have voted someone associated with “terrorism” IN? C’mon BN, is time to come to ur senses and reliaties, dont use ur “bad means” to justify “good ends”. We’ve had enough! Rakyats are not as stupid as you. FREE THE HINDRAF 5!

    Btw, Uncle Lim, any chance to post the first cabinet on youtube? Cant wait!!

  5. #5 by kickbutt on Sunday, 30 March 2008 - 1:40 am

    The issue is not so much the release of some from a particular organization deemed as having links to terrorism but the release of all detained under the ISA. Charge them, release them on bail or release them unconditionally. Why should these people be denied their right to due process?

    “Having myself being detained twice for a total of 35 months under the ISA, I can vouch that ISA detentions had been used as political instruments to suppress dissent which have no relationship whatsoever with national security – and the ISA detention of the five Hindraf leaders fall directly under this category!” Kit

    You did not lead street protests in the nature of what we saw, and you did not appeal to a foreign government to interfere in what is essentially a domestic affair of a sovereign state; or base your struggle or draw your inspiration on the activities of a foreign organization supportive of terrorism. Or did you? Did you travel to China to get support of the Chinese government to stop the racial discrimination here? Or did you?

    Let all detainees be charged or released unconditionally and without bail.

  6. #6 by lakilompat on Sunday, 30 March 2008 - 2:03 am

    The govt. just wanted to redeem their pride since everyone has rejected them, the states Rakyat from the 5 states, and the royal family from Perlis & Terengganu. If they continue to detain the Hindraf 5 at least for some time, they can shows the opposition, look here what u guys can do? we are stil in power, we don’t give in to any s….t or threat!

    They don’t care even lawyer said is unconstitution, they can said the appointment of MB is unconstitution in Perlis & Terengganu, the use of ISA is also unconstitution but as long as within Pak Lah order, he will use it. Why Sultan can use his power to appoint MB? Now Pak Lah jus want to show rakyat he got power to use ISA even though the opposition has won but still there’s not much opposition can do, he don’t even care abt. YB Karpal Singth, YB LKS, and other opposition leaders plight to release them. I really feel sad, this guy is making me a Rakyat Malaysia want to fill the ISA detention camp so that they ran out the capacity. I suggest we have a big march if they continue like that, really unjust.

  7. #7 by Joshua Tan Kok Hauw on Sunday, 30 March 2008 - 3:12 am

    RELEASE HINDRAF 5 IMMEDIATELY!

    They were just telling BN government the plight and sufferings of Indian in Malaysia. How could BN arrest them under the ISA just based on a police report implicating them with TTER terrorist group?

    So, if I make a police report alleging that Samy Vellu despoil the wealth of Malaysia and Indian, will Syed Hamid incarcerate Samy Vellu under the ISA?

    BN if you have evidence against them just prove it in court, if you do not do it you are just a castrated eunuch and coward.

  8. #8 by Come2Papa on Sunday, 30 March 2008 - 6:33 am

    Why only the Hindraf 5? What about the others?? Are they a security threat too? Why only Indians?

  9. #9 by k1980 on Sunday, 30 March 2008 - 7:34 am

    Wow…wonder who is the terror behind all these?
    Allegedly bought ACJ 319 VIP jet from Airbus costing between US$55 million and US$60 million, but denied the claim in January last year, saying that the government had only leased the aircraft from national carrier Malaysia Airlines Bhd and that that the plane was not for his use alone.

    Alleged by Turkish newspaper Hurriyet to have ordered a RM30 million super-luxury yacht in August 2006, alongside a claim that he had been in Bodrum to check on progress – Abdullah denied it and was mulling legal action against the newspaper.

    Initially linked to ownership of a RM60 million mansion in Perth, Australia, in April 2007 but subsequent reports quoting son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin said the house belongs to the PM’s son, Kamaludin.

    Implicated in a UN agency independent report in the worldwide oil-for-food scandal involving Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but denied doing anything more than signing papers endorsing people in business.The report traced payment of US$10 million by Mastek Sdn Bhd, originally registered as a sawn timber company and a dormant company revived by Abdullah’s sister-in-law Noor Asiah Mahmood, her ex-husband Faek Ahmad Shareef and businessperson Jaya Sudhir.

    Awarded the RM25 billion Penang Global City Centre project to Abad Naluri – a 25 percent-owned associate firm of Taman Equine which is wholly owned by developer Equine Capital, whose executive chairman Patrick Lim has close ties to Abdullah.

    Awarded the RM3.4 billion Penang monorail project to Penang Port and Scomi Group, in which Kamaludin holds the controlling stake; Scomi has also been refurbishing railway coaches for Malayan Railway, acting as contractors to Petronas and has reportedly made a bid for the Penang Second bridge project.

    In February 2004, BBC reported that Scomi subsidiary, Scomi Precision Engineering Sdn Bhd was making centrifuge for export to Libya, for nuclear devices. Two years later, the CEO and four executives of Mitutoyo Corporation were arrested by the Tokyo police for the connection of sale of equipment to Scomi, for the production of these centrifuge. Scomi disclaimed knowledge of the intended use of the parts.

  10. #10 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 30 March 2008 - 8:03 am

    WOULD THE BN GOVERNMENT SURVIVE ANOTHER FACE-OFF?

    Sec. 11 of the Internal Security Act (ISA) allows for review all detentions by an independent board i.e. the Advisory Board. Currently, the recommendations by this Board are not binding on the government and are ignored.

    Since the Board is appointed by the Agong albeit on the advice of the Prime Minister, and judging from the growing independence in the use of his personal discretion there is some hope yet that the Agong could use his personal discretion to initiate some sort of review by the Board whose recommendations the BN government would do well not to ignore.

  11. #11 by drselva on Sunday, 30 March 2008 - 12:30 pm

    Why Indians in ISA: We have no representations in this country. Indians are like “anak yatim piatu”. The only way to release the Innocent Hindraff 5 from ISA is; MIC, MCA, PPP and Gerakan leaders must persuade the PM and make the Indians happy. Till then you people will be unpopular among them and other Malaysians. This is your last chance to prove yourself that you are not what they think.

  12. #12 by sotong on Monday, 31 March 2008 - 10:38 am

    Thanks to UMNO, nothing could save the smaller component parties in BN.

    They have grossly neglected the basic rights of their community under the Constitution and as responsible, peaceful and hard working INDIVIDUALS who contributed significantly to the country.

  13. #13 by One4All4One on Monday, 31 March 2008 - 9:08 pm

    HINDRAF 5

    JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED

  14. #14 by pohwatchdog on Monday, 31 March 2008 - 9:53 pm

    Dato Samy is right. Release the 5 Hindraf detainee.Give due respect to Dato Samy. Sungai Siput (U) have progress very well since 1974.
    Emotional vote by Indians deprive him another shot.

    No doubt… we are not prefect. DAP leaders had given the chance. Prove your capabilities to serve the rakyat. Improve the quality of our life. ADUN Jalong should keep her promise to stay in Sungai Siput (U)

  15. #15 by lakilompat on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 - 11:22 am

    Mr. Sammy is the old soldiers! he will fight till 100 yrs old. The old indian don’t die, he jus went bald.

  16. #16 by limkamput on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 - 12:18 am

    One commentator says: “You did not lead street protests in the nature of what we saw, and you did not appeal to a foreign government to interfere in what is essentially a domestic affair of a sovereign state; or base your struggle or draw your inspiration on the activities of a foreign organization supportive of terrorism. Or did you? Did you travel to China to get support of the Chinese government to stop the racial discrimination here? Or did you?”

    1. Is street protest a legitimate act? (please don’t confuse with legal or illegal ok); Who actually converted a street protect into a violent protest?
    2. Is soliciting foreign support for a legitimate cause an illegal act?
    3. Is it wrong to draw inspiration from anywhere including from a foreign country?
    4. What evidence have you got that Hindraf sought help from an organisation supportive of terrorism? (pls don’t deny, lots of things are said by implication.)
    5. Is racial discrimination per se bad? Does it matter one seek support to get rid of discrimination from anywhere?

  17. #17 by limkamput on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 - 12:25 am

    Undergrad2 says: “Since the Board is appointed by the Agong albeit on the advice of the Prime Minister, and judging from the growing independence in the use of his personal discretion there is some hope yet that the Agong could use his personal discretion to initiate some sort of review by the Board whose recommendations the BN government would do well not to ignore.”

    What legal or constitutional basis have you got? To what extent you want to give the royalty and the Agong the “personal discretion”? Someday, can this discretion be detrimental to democracy?

  18. #18 by limkamput on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 - 12:33 am

    undergrad2 says: “Rather than abolish the ISA we should ‘abolish’ those who use it for purposes unintended by Parliament when it passed the law. It is important that we not throw the baby out with the bath water.
    Suffice it to say that the “evil” lies not in the legislation but in its arbitrary use and abuse.”

    NO, the evil is in the legislation itself. If the legislation has not said so, the executive branch would not be able to abuse it.

    Poor analogy – it is not throwing the baby out with the bath water. If we want safeguards, the legislation must specifically and unequivocally say so.

  19. #19 by LadyGodiva on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 - 5:10 am

    Can’t you smell the stench! I detect the odor of a dead rat in the room.

  20. #20 by kickbutt on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 - 7:07 am

    Yep, I could! The foul stench of a dead rat is everywhere. I gotta run!

  21. #21 by limkamput on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 - 8:38 am

    This is what the oxygen grazer does: can’t engage in meaningful discourse. Come on, answer the questions i have for you above. But i guess this is all you have got.

  22. #22 by kickbutt on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 - 10:15 am

    For me??? Muahahaha….!

  23. #23 by lakilompat on Monday, 21 April 2008 - 2:42 pm

    1. Is street protest a legitimate act? (please don’t confuse with legal or illegal ok); Who actually converted a street protect into a violent protest?
    In China, you will get mow by tank. Incidents in Tiananmen

    2. Is soliciting foreign support for a legitimate cause an illegal act?
    Myanmar has been doing it for years, even the UN was aware but nothing much can be done.

    3. Is it wrong to draw inspiration from anywhere including from a foreign country?
    Don’t think so, i think you can ask Aung San Su Kyi, as she’s expert in drawing inspiration even nobel prize fame to her country.

    4. What evidence have you got that Hindraf sought help from an organisation supportive of terrorism? (pls don’t deny, lots of things are said by implication.)
    Basically it is just a hot & sizzling accusatopm, it’s fun to include those line in, e.g. Anwar & Sukma case.

    5. Is racial discrimination per se bad?
    UMNO fight for Ketuanaan Melayu, not Ketuanaan Rakyat?

    Does it matter one seek support to get rid of discrimination from anywhere?
    If those who oppose can get 2/3 majority, then it matters.

You must be logged in to post a comment.