Malay must rule Malay Land - BTN

Malays must rule the country, says BTN rep

UPDATED @ 01:43:24 PM 27-09-2010

By Boo Su-Lyn

September 27, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 27 — National Civics Bureau (BTN) deputy director Hamim Husin today proclaimed Malay rights as a mandate to rule the country amid a spike in Malay rhetoric.
Former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad recently warned Malays that they would lose power if Pakatan Rakyat (PR) took control of Putrajaya.
“The rights of Malays, is to rule the country. Simple,” Hamim told Puteri Umno delegates in a closed-door function today.
“Malays must unite in the face of threats,” he added.
The BTN Federal Territory deputy director cited an example where the Malay ruling party failed to act during a purportedly seditious demonstration by non-Muslims in Kuala Lumpur a few years ago.
“The Hindus marched to Parliament to send a memorandum. They, like Hindraf (Hindu Rights Action Force), are groups that spread sedition,” said Hamim.
“Where was the political party then?” he asked.
About 30,000 protestors from the Hindu non-governmental organisation Hindraf had rallied in the city in November 2007 to submit a memorandum to the British embassy, where they demanded for the Queen’s Counsel to represent sidelined Malaysian Indians.
Today, Hamim underscored the importance of Malay unity in view of a possibility that snap polls may be called as early as next year.

The ‘si mata sepet’ that has never gone to a mosque or surau only has one vote. The ‘si botol’ that only knows how to go up to Batu Caves up and down only has one vote.

“The general election is coming soon. If there is still disunity, we cannot have events like this... where we can say what we want,” he said.
Last Tuesday, Dr Mahathir said the Malays were not aware of the political threat facing them as they were divided into three groups (PAS, PKR, Umno), where no one group could obtain a percentage of Malay votes that can secure power for the community.
He also claimed that the political marginalisation of the Malays had already become a reality in PR-controlled states even though those administrations were led by Malays.
The former Umno president, who still commands widespread influence among party members and the larger Malay community, pointed to the former PR mentri besar in Perak Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin as an example of how Malay politicians had been sidelined by PR.
Dr Mahathir also implied that a Chinese or an Indian could become prime minister if PR took federal power because there was no constitutional restriction on race for the position.
Today, Hamim also urged Puteri Umno to make sacrifices in a bid to defend Malay rights.
“In the context of Malay rights, don’t just demand for your rights. You must ask, ‘what must I sacrifice to defend my rights?’” he said.
Hamim stressed that the Malays could not rule the country without co-operating with the non-Malay communities as each citizen only carried a single vote.
“Malays cannot rule the country by themselves. That’s why we make friends with the MCA and MIC,” he said.
“The ‘si mata sepet’ that has never gone to a mosque or surau only has one vote. The ‘si botol’ that only knows how to go up to Batu Caves up and down only has one vote,” said Hamim, using apparently derogatory terms to describe the Chinese and Indian communities in Malaysia.
“So Puteri Umno must make friends with youths who are not Malays,” he added.
He also exhorted Puteri Umno to recruit youths born from marriages with foreigners into their party.
“There are many foreigners who have children here. Their daughters and sons who have turned 18 should be in Puteri and Putera Umno,” said Hamim.
“You are losing them... thousands of them. You should be collecting them and network with them,” he added.
MI

Sodomy 11 trial is damaging to Malaysia

Branson urges Najib to halt Sodomy II trial

By Yow Hong Chieh

September 27, 2010

Richard Branson stands beside Virgin Mother Ship Eve, White Knight Two, at Wittman Field, site of the Experimental Aircraft Association Convention in Oshkosh, Wisconsin July 27, 2009. - Reuters pic

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 27 — Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson has called on the Malaysian prime minister to intervene in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial, calling the issue “a thorn” in Malaysia’s otherwise good reputation. “If you’re a bold leader, you should get rid of things like this which are damaging your reputation,” he said today at the “Dawn of the New Decade: Alternative Investments in Asia” conference here.
“This has gone on for a long, long time. It looks bad overseas.”
While Branson did not think Anwar’s Sodomy II trial was causing foreign investors to shy away from Malaysia in any major way, the mercurial entrepreneur nonetheless said more people would want to invest in Malaysia if it were more open and liberal.
He added that it was incumbent on the prime minister to address the “damaging” trial as good leaders looked after their citizens well, much like how good employers take care of their employees.
Branson was speaking at the “Dawn of the New Decade - Alternative Investments in Asia” forum in the capital hosted by the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA). He went on after MIDA Director-general Datuk Jalilah Baba gave her address.
Anwar, the 62-year-old PKR de facto leader, is charged with sodomising his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara here between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
The former deputy prime minister has denied the charge, describing it as “evil, frivolous lies by those in power” when the charge was read out to him. He is charged under section 377B of the Penal Code and can be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years’ jail and whipping upon conviction. The trial is taking place 18 months after Anwar was charged in court in August 2008.
Anwar was charged with sodomy and corruption in 1998 after he was sacked from the Cabinet and was later convicted and jailed for both offences.
He was freed in September 2004 and later resurrected his political career by winning back his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat in a by-election in 2008, which had been held in the interim by his wife.
He had earlier led the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, to a historic sweep of five states and 82 parliamentary seats in Election 2008.
Anwar’s Sodomy II trial will resume on October 14.
MI

RPK Attacked PAS Youth Chief

So no, the answer does not lie in God’s laws. In fact, God’s laws were actually the problem because it was so easy to manipulate the so-called Word of God and no one dared question the injustice lest they be accused of being anti-God.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
The PAS Youth chief, Nasrudin Hassan, wants the Islamic criminal laws known as Hudud to be implemented in the country. “The existing legal system has not been successful, so there is a need for an alternative system,” he said -- and he cited the gruesome murder of businesswoman Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others as an example of the failure of the current system.
The issue here is not whether I support or oppose the enactment of Hudud. The issue is the quality of the PAS Youth leader’s argument. And if this is the best that PAS can offer in terms of leadership then I do not have much hope for this party.
First of all, PAS told us that all Islamic laws, Hudud included, would not apply to non-Muslims but only to Muslims. If this is true then why quote the example of the murder of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya? This woman was allegedly killed by Indian Hindus, not by Malay Muslims. And since Hudud applies only to Muslims then it does not matter whether Malaysia does or does not implement these Islamic laws. It would not have deterred these Indian Hindus from killing Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya because they would have been exempted from these laws anyway.
Now, if Hudud, an Islamic law, will also apply to non-Muslims, then why only Hudud? There are many Islamic laws, Hudud being just one of them. If Hudud will apply to non-Muslims as well, then all the other Islamic laws must also apply to non-Muslims.
Will non-Muslims get arrested for drinking beer? Will non-Muslims get arrested for not attending the Friday prayers in the mosque? Will non-Muslims get arrested for bonking a woman who is not his wife? And so on.
If the answer is ‘no’, if non-Muslims are exempted from all these Islamic laws, then they should also be exempted from Hudud, which is one of many Islamic laws.
Is this fair? Non-Muslims can commit serious crimes and get exemption from Islamic laws. Muslims who commit serious crimes get punished under Islamic laws. So Muslims who commit murder get dragged into the public square after Friday prayers and get beheaded. Non-Muslims relax in jail.
So, if I get arrested and charged for murder, all I need to do is to tell the court that I had in fact renounced Islam a long time ago and then I escape punishment under Hudud. Or will I instead get charged for apostasy and get put to death for leaving Islam? So, I escape the punishment for murder under Hudud but I still die for apostasy.
So you see, PAS leaders like Nasrudin Hassan need to think things through carefully before they open their mouths or else people might start forming an opinion that all PAS leaders are outdated and narrow-minded country bumpkins.
“The existing legal system has not been successful, so there is a need for an alternative system,” said Nasrudin Hassan.
Ah, so now he whacks the system and blames that for the problems facing the country. The system is not working so we abolish the system and we replace it with another more workable system.
Is it really a system failure or an implementation (human) failure? Any system, when badly or wrongly implemented, or implemented with mala fide intent, will fail. So is it a system failure or a human failure?
A Constitutional Monarchy is good. There is nothing wrong with this system. But when it is used to topple a legitimately elected state government, like what happened in Perak, then what do we do? Do we remove the Monarchy and change Malaysia into a Republic? Do we blame the system or the manipulation of the system?
Why is the present legal system bad? And how can Hudud improve things? This is where Nasrudin Hassan needs to present his case and convince Malaysians that things would improve by removing the British system in favour of an Islamic system. By just quoting the murder of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya as an example of a failed system without further explanation on how Hudud could have prevented her murder is a stupid argument not befitting someone of the status of a PAS Youth leader.
The failure of the present system is not because it happens to be a British system and that by abolishing it in favour of an Islamic system all our problems would be solved. The failure of the present system is because the so-called Muslims managing the system are corrupt to the core.
The Muslim political leaders are corrupt. The Muslim civil servants are corrupt. The Muslim judges are corrupt. The Muslim police officers are corrupt. The Muslim MACC officers are corrupt. The Muslim public prosecutors are corrupt. The Muslim lawyers representing criminals are corrupt and they bribe judges to fix their clients’ cases.
And so on.
It is not that there are no corrupt non-Muslims as well. There are. In fact, there are as many corrupt non-Muslims as there are corrupt Muslims. But it is the Muslims and not the non-Muslims who are asking for Hudud to be implemented so I am focusing my argument on the so-called righteous Muslims who are actually very corrupt and not righteous at all.
You mean to say that every single PAS leader and member is above corruption? Come on! Some PAS people are also corrupt. As what Ibrahim Ali said: the only difference between PAS and Umno is that the PAS people utter ‘Bismillah’ before they take a bribe whilst Umno people do not.
Malaysia can abolish the present legal system. Malaysia can adopt Islamic laws such as Hudud. But if Muslim judges, police officers, MACC investigators, lawyers and public prosecutors can be bribed to rig cases then no system in the world will work.
You mean to tell me that corrupt Muslim judges, police officers, public prosecutors, lawyers, and so on, who are involved in Hudud-related cases will not take bribes? If they normally take bribes then they will take bribes notwithstanding what the occasion is. It does not matter whether the case is under Hudud laws or common laws.
Hudud is merely the punishment. But before the criminals can be punished they must first be put on trial. For a fee the AG’s Chambers can declare that the case is NFA (no further action) because of ‘lack of evidence’. For a fee the police can declare that they investigated the case and found no evidence of guilt. For a fee the judge can declare that no prima facie case had been made against the accused and discharge the accused without the defence being called.
Can Hudud solve the crime problem when cases can be rigged and criminals can bribe Muslim officials to get off?
What about if they fabricate evidence against a political enemy of those who walk in the corridors of power and an innocent man is punished? An innocent person can face punishment if the police, AG and judge say that the person is guilty even if that person is not.
Can Hudud prevent this from happening? How can Hudud ensure that the system remains free of corruption and abuse?
Nasrudin Hassan, please study history. Once upon a time the western world also implemented God’s law. But the church was so corrupt that injustice prevailed. The church eliminated the enemies of the many kings of Europe by using God’s laws as the weapon. Innocent people suffered because they opposed the church and/or the kings. In the name of God religious people killed those who did not kowtow to the powers-that-be.
We have gone down this road before. And life began to improve only when the people revolted and overthrew their corrupted leaders and got rid of God’s laws in favour of democratic republics.
So no, the answer does not lie in God’s laws. In fact, God’s laws were actually the problem because it was so easy to manipulate the so-called Word of God and no one dared question the injustice lest they be accused of being anti-God.
If the system is not working then don’t change the system. Get rid of the people who are manipulating and corrupting the system.
For that matter, the Westminster system of government also does not seem to be working. The opposition Pakatan Rakyat garners 50% of the popular vote but can’t win 50% of the seats. Barisan Nasional can still form the federal government even if they garner only 45% of the popular vote. Pakatan Rakyat would have to garner 60% of the popular vote to be able to form the federal government.
This means, under the present system, Pakatan Rakyat can never form the federal government because it is impossible for it to garner 60% of the popular vote with the election fraud, phantom voters, postal voting, gerrymandering, and so on, going on.
So what do we do? Do we abolish general elections? If we do then how do we choose our government? Or do we just let the military run the country?
What we must do is to get rid of the corrupt Muslims heading the Elections Commission (SPR). It is the Muslims in the SPR who are the problem. And no Islamic system can improve things if the Muslims who are supposed to be the implementers are corrupt.
“We have opened up our doors to everyone including our partners in Pakatan for a discussion. I don’t think that goes against the spirit of Pakatan Rakyat that aims to form a just government,” said Nasrudin Hassan.
My dear Nasrudin Hassan, justice cannot be achieved this way. Justice, which is supposed to be the foundation of Islam, can only be achieved when Muslims can understand what the word justice means. Currently they do not.
Muslims talk about justice. But there is no justice in their hearts. Their hearts are black with injustice.
This is where the problem lies.

***********************************************

PAS Youth insists on hudud for serious crimes
(The Malaysian Insider) - The PAS Youth insisted today that the enactment of Islamic criminal laws would prevent serious crimes from taking place, reopening a controversy that broke an earlier opposition pact in 2001.
The Islamic criminal laws also known as Hudud allows for amputation and death by stoning for serious crimes, and has been a sore point among Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties which had formed Barisan Alternatif (BA) in the 1999 elections only to see it fall apart later.
The coalition however managed to reach at its inaugural convention last year when the introduction of Hudud law was dropped from the PR’s common policy framework.
“The existing legal system has not been successful, so there is a need for an alternative system,” PAS Youth chief Nasrudin Hassan told a press conference.
He cited the gruesome murder of businesswoman Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others as an example of failure of the current system. Police said the four were bludgeoned and later burnt but are awaiting forensic results before charging several suspects.
“We have opened up our doors to everyone including our partners in Pakatan for a discussion.”
“I don’t think that goes against the spirit of Pakatan Rakyat that aims to form a just government,” said Nasrudin when pointed out that the proposal for Islamic law was not part of PR policy.
“Now we are asking the government to do it. If it is proven to be successful, I don’t think anyone will oppose it including Pakatan,” he added.
Kelantan was the first state to enact Islamic criminal law when PAS took over the government in 1990. The Terengganu government under PAS also did the same in 2000, but both states have not been able to enforce the law because of doubts over the legality of the enactment.
“What was enacted in Kelantan and Terengganu maybe can be introduced at the federal level,” said Nasrudin.
“It is a comprehensive law but could not be enforced because of legal obstacles,” he said.
The Barisan Nasional (BN) has proclaimed Malaysia as an Islamic nation but has not made moves to enact hudud laws, citing the country’s multi-racial mix.

Why Anti Zaid Blog?

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Blog Anti Zaid dibina - Kenapa Hingga Jadi Begini??

Selain dari akan memperolehi nama dan juga sedikit pengaruh jawatan bagi Timbalan Presiden PKR itu tidak menjanjikan apa-apa sebenarnya andaikata Pakatan Rakyat dan PKR sendiri terkangkang dipintu Putrajaya..

Namun begitu kempen yang berjalan bagi merebut Jawatan Timbalan Presiden PKR kelihatan semakin hebat dan panas, dengan berbagai-bagai dakwaan berlakunya penyelewengan dan salah guna harta kerajaan negeri mula kedengaran.

Malaysiakini hari ini melaporkan lima nama telah dicalonkan dan Naib presiden PKR, Azmin Ali telah memperolehi 43 pencalonan manakala pencabar terdekatnya, pengerusi PKR Wilayah Persekutuan, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim mendapat 21 pencalonan, manakala naib presiden, Mustaffa Kamil Ayub mendapat 10 pencalonan.

Tiga lagi yang turut dicalonkan untuk jawatan timbalan presiden ialah pengarah strategik PKR Tian Chua yang mendapat dua pencalonan manakala Menteri Besar Selangor, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim dan ahli parlimen Kuantan, Fuziah Salleh masing-masing mendapat satu pencalonan.


Itu adalah pencalonan dari Cabang yang sebenarnya bukanlah mewakili suara akar umbipun bagi sesetengah tempat.. jadi tiada apa yang boleh dibanggakan disini.. yang akan menentukan siapa sebenarnya bakal memegang kerusi Timbalan Presiden itu ialah 400,000 ahli PKR seluruh negara.. lainlah jika disaat-saat akhir etika pemilihan ditukar pula dari 400,000 ahli menjadi hanya pencalonan dari Cabang-cabag sahaja yang akan diambil kira.

Contohnya seperti yang terjadi di Permatang Pauh.. asalnya dikatakan undi dari 6117 ahli PKR Permatang Pauh akan menentukan siapa yang akan memegang jawatan Timbalan Ketua Cabang akhirnya ianya bertukar menjadi hanya satu suara ghaib yang datangnya dari langit (menerusi satelit) yang menentukan siapa Timbalan Ketua Cabang.. kisahnya di SINI

Yang jelas kelihatan sengit adalah pertandingan diantara Azmin Ali dan Zaid Ibrahim dan diantara mereka berdua yang sering diserang ialah Zaid Ibrahim yang pernah dianggap sebagai wira semasa PRK Hulu Selangor beberapa bulan yang lepas.

Semalam beliau diserang oleh Pengarah Komunikasi PKR Nik Nazmi dengan kaedah yang biasa digunakan oleh UMNO iaitu menyerang peribadi lawan.. kisahnya di SINI

Hari ini pula muncul sebuah blog yang dibangunkan oleh entah siapa khusus bagi menyerang peribadi Dato Zaid .

Blog yang diberikan nama sebagai ‘Selamatkan KeAdilan’ dan mottonya ialah Jangan biarkan orang luar musnahkan parti.

Kononnya menurut admin blog tersebut, ianya dilahirkan diatas kesedaran untuk menyelamatkan Parti Keadilan Rakyat (KeAdilan) daripada dimusnahkan oleh seseorang yang ditaja oleh ahli perniagaan yang tamak dan rakus.

Blog ini juga akan memaparkan pendedahan demi pendedahan tentang siapakah orang yang dimaksudkan di atas.Kepada pembaca dan sesiapa yang ingin berkongsi maklumat tentang kejahatan orang yang dimaksudkan, sila email ke antizaid@gmail.com.

Soalnya mengapa hingga jadi begini? Mengapa kita perlu memberikan peluru-peluru kepada musuh kita iaitu UMNO dan BN untuk menyerang dan membunuh ahli kita sendiri? Mengapa perlu kita menghulurkan pedang kepada musuh kita untuk memancung sahabat kita sendiri?

Tidakkah itu khianat namanya? Khianat kepada seorang teman seperjuangan..

Tidak terfikirkah manusia yang membangunkan blog tersebut akan implikasi yang akan menimpa Dato Zaid dalam PRU yang akan datang andaikata beliau dicalonkan sebagai Calon PKR untuk PRU yang akan datang?

Apa yang boleh digunakan oleh Blogger-blogger Pro Pakatan Rakyat untuk menangkis serangan dari blogger-blogger Pro UMNO yang menggunakan segala maklumat yang disiarkan oleh blog tersebut?

Mengapa perlu bertindak sehingga begini BODOH dalam menzahirkan kesetiaan yang tidak berbelah bagi kepada seseorang?

Yang akan diserang itu ialah Ahli kita sendiri, ahli yang pernah kita dari PKR mencalonkan dan menobatkannya sebagai Hero kita semasa PRK Hulu Selangor dulu.

Ahli yang telah kita terima dengan bangganya ketika beliau mengumumkan untuk menyertai PKR..

Adakah kerana beliau menentang Azmin Ali dalam Pemilihan ini maka beliau perlu dianggap sebagai musuh? Kalau takut menerima tentangan kenapa perlu bertanding? hanya minta bantuan dari Tangan atau Suara Ghaib itu bagi mencaturkan segalanya.. menyusun siapa saja yang disukainya..

Itulah yang terjadi andai dibiarkan nafu tamak untuk berkuasa menguasai diri..

Bagaimanapun dari tema blog ini iaitu ‘Selamatkan KeAdilan’ jelas kelihatan bahawa manusia yang membangunkannya bukanlah seorang yang peka terhadap Parti, kerana menurut perlembagaan PKR yang terbaru ejaan bagi keadilan sepatutnya ialah ‘KEADILAN’ bukannya ditulis sebagai ‘KeAdilan’.

Selain dari tidak peka terhadap perkembangan Parti, manusia yang membangunkan blog tersebut juga jelas tidak tahu akan wujudnya Etika Pemilihan Parti yang mengatakan dengan jelas bahawa ‘Setiap anggota tidak boleh memfitnah, mengeji, menghina, menjalankan kempen atau serangan berupa cacian terhadap calon lain atau kehidupan peribadi calon atau keluarganya.’

Kenapa perlu bertindak begitu BODOH hanya kerana mahu melihat Azmin Ali dinobatkan sebagai Timbalan Presiden PKR?

Tak perlulah kita mendedahkan semua keburukan teman seperjuangan kita hanya kerana mahu melihat manusia yang disokong kita menang.. simpanlah sikit untuk dihari muka..

Sedarlah... PKR itu bukan untuk Azmin Ali ataupun Zaid Ibrahim dan juga PKR itu bukannya untuk Anwar sendiri.. tapi ianya dibina untuk menuntut keadilan buat rakyat yang dijajah UMNO/BN!!!

Posted by Anak Sungai Derhaka at Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Zaid letter to PM

Tuesday September 30, 2008 MYT 7:43:00 PM

Zaid Ibrahim's open letter to PM

29 September 2008
YAB Dato’ Seri Abdullah Badawi
Prime Minister of Malaysia
5th Floor, East Wing
Perdana Putra Building
Putrajaya
Malaysia
Dear Mr Prime Minister
In our proclamation of independence, our first Prime Minister gave voice to the lofty aspirations and dreams of the people of Malaya: that Malaya was founded on the principles of liberty and justice, and the promise that collectively we would always strive to improve the welfare and happiness of its people.
Many years have passed since that momentous occasion and those aspirations and dreams remain true and are as relevant to us today as they were then. This was made possible by a strong grasp of fundamentals in the early period of this nation. The Federal Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it were well founded; they embodied the key elements of a democracy built on the Rule of Law. The Malaysian Judiciary once commanded great respect from Malaysians and was hailed as a beacon for other nations. Our earlier Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn were truly leaders of integrity, patriots in their own right and most importantly, men of humility. They believed in and built this nation on the principles and values enunciated in our Constitution.
Even when they had to enact the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960, they were very cautious and apologetic about it. Tunku stated clearly that the Act was passed to deal with the communist threat. “My cabinet colleagues and I gave a solemn promise to Parliament and the nation that the immense powers given to the Government under the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition and silent lawful dissent”, was what the Tunku said. Our third Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn reinforced this position by saying that the ISA was not intended to repress lawful political opposition and democratic activity on the part of the citizenry.
The events of the last three weeks have compelled me to review the way in which the ISA has been used. This exercise has sadly led me to the conclusion that the Government has time and time again failed the people of this country in repeatedly reneging on that solemn promise made by Tunku Abdul Rahman. This has been made possible because the Government and the law have mistakenly allowed the Minister of Home Affairs to detain anyone for whatever reason he thinks fit. This subjective discretion has been abused to further certain political interests.
History is the great teacher and speaks volumes in this regard. Even a cursory examination of the manner in which the ISA has been used almost from its inception would reveal the extent to which its intended purpose has been subjugated to the politics of the day.
Regrettably, Tunku Abdul Rahman himself reneged on his promise. In 1965, his administration detained Burhanuddin Helmi, the truly towering Malay intellectual, a nationalist who happened to be a PAS leader. He was kept in detention until his death in 1969. Helmi was a political opponent and could by no stretch of the imagination be considered to have been involved in the armed rebellion or communism that the ISA was designed to deal with. This detention was an aberration, a regrettable moment where politics had been permitted to trump the rule of law. It unfortunately appears to have set a precedent and many detentions of persons viewed as having been threatening to the incumbent administration followed through the years. Even our literary giant, ‘sasterawan negara’ the late Tan Sri A Samad Ismail was subjected to the ISA in 1976. How could he have been a threat to national security?
I need not remind you of the terrible impact of the 1987 Operasi Lalang. Its spectre haunts the Government as much as it does the peace loving people of this nation, casting a gloom over all of us. There were and still are many unanswered questions about those dark hours when more than a hundred persons were detained for purportedly being threats to national security. Why they were detained has never been made clear to Malaysians. Similarly, no explanation has been forthcoming as to why they were never charged in court. Those detainees included amongst their numbers senior opposition Members of Parliament who are still active in Parliament today. The only thing that is certain about that period was that UMNO was facing a leadership crisis. Isn’t it coincidental that the recent spate of ISA arrests has occurred when UMNO is again having a leadership crisis?
In 2001, Keadilan ‘reformasi’ activists were detained in an exercise that the Federal Court declared was in bad faith and unlawful. The continued detention of those that were not released earlier in the Kamunting detention facility was made possible only by the fact that the ISA had been questionably amended in 1988 to preclude judicial review of the Minister’s order to detain. Malaysians were told that these detainees had been attempting to overthrow the Government via militant means and violent demonstrations. Seven years have gone and yet no evidence in support of this assertion has been presented. Compounding the confusion even further, one of these so-called militants, Ezam Mohamad Noor, recently rejoined UMNO to great fanfare, as a prized catch it would seem.
At around the same time, members of PAS were also detained for purportedly being militant and allegedly having links to international terrorist networks. Those detained included Nik Adli, the son of Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat the Menteri Besar of Kelantan. Malaysians were made a promise by the Government that evidence of the alleged terrorist activities and links of these detainees would be disclosed. To date no such evidence has been produced.
The same formula was used in late 2007 when the HINDRAF 5 were detained. Malaysians were told once again that these individuals were involved in efforts to overthrow the Government and had links with the militant Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam of Sri Lanka. To date no concrete evidence have been presented to support this assertion. It would seem therefore that the five were detained for their involvement in efforts that led to a mobilisation of Malaysian Indians to express, through peaceful means, their frustration against the way in which their community had been allowed to be marginalised. This cause has since been recognised as a legitimate one. The HINDRAF demonstration is nothing extraordinary as such assemblies are universally recognised as being a legitimate means of expression.
In the same vein, the grounds advanced in support of the most recent detentions of Tan Hoon Cheng, Teresa Kok and Raja Petra Kamarudin leave much to be desired. The explanation that Tan Hoon Cheng was detained for her own safety was farcical. The suggestion that Teresa Kok had been inciting religious sentiments was unfounded as was evinced by her subsequent release.
As for Raja Petra Kamarudin, the prominent critic of the Government, a perusal of his writings would show that he might have been insulting of the Government and certain individuals within it. However, being critical and insulting could not in any way amount to a threat to national security. If his writings are viewed as being insulting of Islam, Muslims or the Holy Prophet (pbuh), he should instead be charged under the Penal Code and not under the ISA. In any event, he had already been charged for sedition and criminal defamation in respect of some of his statements. He had claimed trial, indicating as such his readiness and ability to defend himself. Justice would best be served by allowing him his day in court more so where, in the minds of the public, the Government is in a position of conflict for having been the target of his strident criticism.
The instances cited above strongly suggest that the Government is undemocratic. It is this perspective that has over the last 25 plus years led to the Government seemingly arbitrarily detaining political opponents, civil society and consumer advocates, writers, businessmen, students, journalists whose crime, if it could be called that, was to have been critical of the Government. How it is these individuals can be perceived as being threats to national security is beyond my comprehension. The self-evident reality is that legitimate dissent was and is quashed through the heavy-handed use of the ISA.
There are those who support and advocate this carte-blanche reading of the ISA. They will seek to persuade you that the interests of the country demand that such power be retained, that Malaysians owe their peace and stability to laws such as the ISA. This overlooks the simple truth that Malaysians of all races cherish peace. We lived together harmoniously for the last 400 years, not because of these laws but in spite of them.
I believe the people of this country are mature and intelligent enough to distinguish actions that constitute a ‘real’ threat to the country from those that threaten political interests. Malaysians have come know that the ISA is used against political opponents and, it would seem, when the leadership is under challenge either from within the ruling party or from external elements.
Malaysians today want to see a Government that is committed to the court process to determine guilt or innocence even for alleged acts of incitement of racial or religious sentiment. They are less willing to believe, as they once did, that a single individual, namely the Minister of Home Affairs, knows best about matters of national security. They value freedom and the protection of civil liberties and this is true of people of other nations too.
Mr Prime Minister, the results of the last General Election are clear indication that the people of Malaysia are demanding a reinstatement of the Rule of Law. I was appointed as your, albeit short-lived, Minister in charge of legal affairs and judicial reform. In that capacity, I came to understand more keenly how many of us want reform, not for the sake of it, but for the extent to which our institutions have been undermined by events and the impact this has had on society.
With your blessing, I attempted to push for reform. High on my list of priorities was a reinstatement of the inherent right of judicial review that could be enabled through a reversion of the key constitutional provision to its form prior to the controversial amendment in 1988. I need not remind you that that constitutional amendment was prompted by the same series of events that led not only to Operasi Lalang but the sacking of the then Lord President and two supreme court justices. Chief amongst my concerns was the way in which the jurisdiction and the power of the Courts to grant remedy against unconstitutional and arbitrary action of the Executive had been removed by Parliament and the extent to which this had permitted an erosion of the civil liberties of Malaysians. It was this constitutional amendment that paved the way for the ouster provision in the ISA that virtually immunises the Minister from judicial review, a provision which exemplifies the injustice the constitutional amendment of 1988 has lent itself.
I also sought to introduce means by which steps could be taken to assist the Judiciary to regain the reputation for independence and competence it once had. Unfortunately, this was viewed as undesirable by some since an independent Judiciary would mean that the Executive would be less ‘influential’.
I attempted to do these things and more because of the realisation that Malaysia’s democratic traditions and the Rule of Law are under siege. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with giving everyone an independent Judiciary and the opportunity to a fair trial. This is consistent with the universal norms of human rights as it is with the tenets of Islam, the religion of the Federation. Unchecked power to detain at the whim of one man is oppressiveness at its highest. Even in Israel, a nation that is perpetually at war, the power to detain is not vested in one man and detention orders require endorsement from a judge.
If there are national security considerations, then these can be approached without jettisoning the safeguards intended to protect individual citizens from being penalised wrongfully. In other jurisdictions involved in armed conflicts, trials are held in camera to allow for judicial scrutiny of evidence considered too sensitive for public disclosure so as to satisfy the ends of justice. If this can be done in these jurisdictions, why not here where the last armed struggle we saw, the very one that precipitated the need for the ISA, came to an end in the 1980s? Any doubts as to the continued relevance of the ISA in its present form should have been put to rest by the recommendation by the National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) that the ISA be repealed and an anti-terror legislation suited to the times enacted in its place. Containing as it did a sunset clause in its original times, the ISA was never intended to be a permanent feature on the Malaysian legal landscape.
Through its continued use in the manner described above and in the face of public sentiment, it is only natural that the ISA has become in the mind of the people an instrument of oppression and the Government is one that lends itself to oppressiveness. Its continued use does not bode well for a society that is struggling to find its place in the global arena. It does not bode well for the democracy that is so vital for us to develop sustainably.
Mr Prime Minister, I remember very clearly what you once said; that if one has the opportunity to do what is good and right for the country, then he must take on the task. I respect you deeply for that and if I were confident that I would have been able to do some good for Malaysia, I would have remained on your team. Sir, you are still the Prime Minister and you still have the opportunity to leave your footprint in Malaysian history. I urge you to do so by repealing the ISA once and for all.
Let us attempt to fulfil that solemn promise made by our beloved first Prime Minister to the people of this country.
Yours sincerely
ZAID IBRAHIM
Kuala Lumpur