Sorry, off-topic
From chedet.co.cc

ISA
By Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on September 28, 2009 5:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBacks (0)

///1. There is much talk today regarding the Internal Security Act. Having released people and having detained people under the ISA, I think I know something about this act and its application.

2. Firstly one must remember that it is a preventive law, that is it is to be applied before a crime is committed. The law cannot be applied after the crime is committed. For this there are other laws.

3. Secondly it can be applied only in certain specific cases, as for example when there is a threat to the security of the country.

4. A possible armed uprising or possibility of civil violence would constitute a threat to the security of the country.

5. However it had been used in the past to incarcerate political opponents, as when Aziz Ishak was detained.///– TDM

All citizens love peace and security in the country, and they hope that these could be achieved when the government does its duties. When the government truly practices parliamentary democracy through ballot boxes, those who oppose government policies do not have to create civil violence to change the government. They will only want to get themselves elected, and for that they should be allowed their message to get across to the electorates. Obviously those who register themselves as members of political parties choose the established process to challenge the government with their ideas. It is the duty of the government to ensure that the people learn to vote with their head, rather than their heart.

The way the government utilised government machinery to achieve political gain, such as the dethroning of the duly elected Perak State government shows that they would use ISA for political purposes.

///6. At this point visitors to this blog are likely to say I did the same. I admit I did detain people under the ISA in the 1987 Ops Lalang. But it was not because they were members of the opposition. The police had informed me that there was likely to be racial clashes over the issue of Chinese education and the intention of some UMNO members to hold a million strong demonstration in K.L.///– TDM

This must be the classic example on how one creates lame excuses. As the President of UMNO, it would be simple enough for him to issue directive to his subordinate not to involve in illegal activities, and the planned organised crime would not materialise. Obviously education is a technical matter, and the issue of Chinese education has nothing to do with UMNO members since they are not forced to take up Chinese education. It is the failure of UMNO politicians to separate technical issues from politics.

If Mahathir chose to use ISA to prevent UMNO members to hold a million strong demonstration in KL, he should have just nabbed a few of the UMNO leaders and declared it as such. There was no need to detain opposition politicians who only uttered their views on Chinese education. By detaining non-Malays in opposition parties to placate the Malays in UMNO Mahathir demonstrated that he made use of ISA for political purposes.

///7. The people detained were not only members of the opposition but included UMNO members. As soon as the threat passed the detainees were all released. The issue was not political opposition to the Government but the threat to national security.///– TDM

The statement is illuminating! The source of trouble was UMNO Malay leaders. The bulk of those detained were non-Malays. UMNO members were only included when they should be only persons put under detention.

///8. I don’t expect this explanation would be accepted by my detractors. But that is normal. Detractors would never admit to being wrong.///– TDM

One argues with the head, not the heart.

///9. On the ISA, it seems odd that some who were detained under the ISA supports this preventive laws. I am sure they don’t support abuses of the law though.///– TDM

It would be odd that this statement is true per se. The persons who should have been detained by ISA would not have been released. Those who had been released support it because of his personal choice, probably to attain political aims.

///9. When the so-called war on terror was launched by Bush and Blair, they did not hesistate to detain so-called suspects without even being sanctioned by any law. They were so critical about our ISA before but not only did they detain thousands of the so-called suspects, they actually tortured the detainees when they felt threats to their security. I will not talk about their invading Iraq and Afghanistan and the killings of thousands of innocent people.///– TDM

Only Hisabmuddin thought that proven terrorist Top should be rehabilitated, perhaps at his home.

The true leaders of any country did not have to await any law to be passed before they take action to protect their country. The people detained were not politicians and outright terrorist suspects who might have been associated with proven criminals. Nobody would question the detention of terrorist suspects. But when the government detain people who have uttered views which are not welcomed, then ISA was clearly meant to silence the persons concerned.

The sedition act is another weapon used by the government to fool the people by preventing them from discussing issues in depth. That deprives the people of their right to assess for themselves the merits and the lack thereof on any policy decision of the government.

///10. The so-called protagonists of human rights were clearly critical when others resort to preventive detention. When they felt threatened they not only detain people but they did this without any law which provides for such act.///– TDM

Those protagonists did not want to have their countries suffer another bombing attack like 911. They should not wait for a law to pass for taking actions to prevent it. Others took preventive detention not to avoid bombs, but to prevent the opponents sitting in their chairs.

///11. Just because our critics are hypocrites does not mean that we should retain the ISA. But there is a need for preventive detention in Malaysia simply because without this threat racist extremists would undermine the stability of this country. That extreme racialism can lead to violence is not something we can take lightly. We must value our stability because it has made it possible for this country to develop much faster than other countries.///– TDM

It is because the Malaysian government implement policies based on race and people classified by race either gain unfair advantages or suffer the discriminations. Grumbling against unequal treatment then becomes the crime and they are then stigmatised as racial extremists for voicing their sufferings. Remember the Suqiu group who wanted only the government to promise to lessen government-sponsored discrimination; after election, they were termed racial extremists.

Had the policies of the government transcended racial line, the people who agree or disapprove of the policy will not be polarised, by race. UMNO leaders perpetrate racial policies not for stability; in fact they risk instability through racial policies so that the leaders could continue with corrupt practice with impunity. ISA is another protective coat for corruption in Malaysia.

///12. Can the ISA be replaced by a court hearing. In Malaysia courts take a long time to pass judgement; months or even years. By then the violence would have taken place, i.e. the court action would have failed to achieve the prevention that the law is meant for.///– TDM

The person who has made Malaysian court a subsidiary of the executive now curses them for inefficiency. The person suspected of causing security threat should be charged in court, to prove that there exists a prima facie case against him. A person was held in detention while waiting for his court appeal, for sodomy charge, not because he could cause violence but because he might influence witnesses. How kind can a person be when he chooses to put a suspect under ISA, rather than have the suspect put under detention while awaiting the court process?

///13. Still there is need to review the ISA. I don’t think it should be done away with but there must be a clear cut provision as to when it could be used. We cannot have people being detained for three days and then released because the detention was for the detainee’s safety.///– TDM

It should just be done away when it clearly demonstrated that it was abused creatively.

///14. Perhaps the period should be shortened to one year and the six monthly review be carried out by properly qualified individuals who have the country’s interest heart besides a desire to maintain human rights.///– TDM

Malaysian leaders have the knack of not doing the right thing, but trying everything else hoping to come to the desired results. Najib just announced the establishment of the multi-racial hostel to help create unity when the right thing was to remove NEP, and to review article 153 of the constitution.

///Back to “Najibo-nomics”.

I do not think it is necessary to give birth to this name. I think there is, in the words of a research or case-study strategy, those who proposed that the name must triangulate the data of Malaysia’s claim to economic invulnerability.///– Azly Rahman

The fact that Harvard takes Najibomohmics as a case study did not mean that it was a success example to be followed. It might well be a case of what not to practise.

One wonders what are included in the Bomoh-mics. Would the RM 500 million for servicing the submarine included? Obviously there are multiplying effects with that amount of money; it would certainly be in UK where the service provider now resides, if not in Malaysia.