Going forward friom what baoqingtian posted at 20: 55.33, admittedly, the recent show of power by ISA use has put Syed Hamid/Govt in not so favourable light in public eyes. When police detained MP Teresa Kok and a Sin Chew reporter only to have release them shortly, it shows that they did not care whether there was any lawful basis for the initial detentions in the first place.

In RPK’s case, his detention was prolonged by ministerial fiat under section 8 of ISA. The fact that RPK is now released by Shah Alam High Court – which according to RPK’s lead counsel, Malik Imtiaz, this was the first time a Malaysian court has ordered the release of an ISA detainee since 1989 – reinforces further the negative perception that abuse of power has taken place.

Legal technicalities aside, judges are not entirely oblivious to shift in public moods, sentiments and mores, which nowadays are much against abuse of power, ISA and a judiciary compliant to government leaders’ dictates.

These public moods, sentiments and mores have in large part being shaped by outrage and disillusionment arising from a spate of developments such as Lingam Video Clip and the Royal Commission of Inquiry, the fact that 3 top CJs’ names were implicated, apologies and ex gratia payments to ex judges unjustly treated by the Executive in 1988, recent attempted judicial reforms and resistance against s uch reforms leading to Zaid Ibrahim’s resignation out of principle.

These events impress upon some of the more far sighted judges that the the public have changed, they expect more, and are fed up with manifest abuse and injustices which in part could well account for the political tsunamy of 8th March.

The above cited events also show that it is better to do right by the law and conscience than the bidding of any politician no matter how high up.

This is because politicians come and go and are subject to vagaries of political fortunes.

In contrast, one’s repute goes with him, and the deeds one does as a judge – whether good or bad, right or wrong – remain in public record and preserved in public memory and it is only a question of time (when) – and not the question of if anymore – that the past will sooner or eventually catch up with the present in which one either receives public vindication, if not approbation, for a right thing past done or account for and face the music of a wrong deed past perpetrated.

Which is why even as Justice Syed Ahmad Helmy was reading his judgment that those in the corridors of power would undoubtedly feel discomfort about, another set back happened in another court room when Sessions Court judge SM Komathy Suppiah ruled against the government that the transfer order of Anwar Ibrahim’s case signed by Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail was invalid.

The judge was Ok this time. Next time we don’t know. Whether a judge is OK or not is but side of the equation, the larger problem is the ISA itself. A judge can be fair but there’s a limit he could do right for civil liberties if the law itself (ISA) is draconian and bad and remains in the books as an experession of legislative/parliamentary will. The judge, no matter how good and fair, can beat around the bush with some latitude in his judicial interpretation to mitigate draconian provisions but he just cannot be seen to ride roughshod over their express wordings.

So this means that like it or not, politics, and neither law or judges’ goodwill will be the final arbiter to determine whether ISA will remain the Sword of Damocles over political dissidents’ heads.

Syed Ahmad Helmy’s decision is wonderful from these aspects:

[A]. It shows a degree of judicial activism, where none existed before, to try tackle section 8 ISA (ie the Ministerial detention for 2 years). True, he has not chosen to tackle section 73 concerning right/powers of police to detain a suspect for 60 days for investigation under ISA (as that would be what you called Harry Potters obiter dicta) since police detention had by Hamid’s signed order already been superseded by ministerial detention under section 8. No matter – to me at least, Ministerial detention of 2 years under s 8 is the main game and relatively bigger issue than police remand for investigation under section 73 for 60 days. (60 days is not as bad as the confirmed 2 yr ministerial detention renewable indefinitely!)

[B] Syed Ahmad Helmy’s decision helps the political equation as well as it gives credance to buttress Civil Society/Opposition’s argument that ISA provisions – whether section 73 or 8 – could be easily abused and in RPK’s case has been abused.

[C] Hopefully this example to interpret the law fairly by citizenry’s rights will inspire one or more of other timorous judicial souls on the bench to follow suit rather than carry on with the attitude of not rocking the boat.