I am simply flabbergasted at the quality of the Malay Mail!
Take a look for yourself here - http://www.mmail.com.my/Comments_from_Teresa_Kok-as-s_blog.aspx
This is what's reported.
As you read it, do also go to Teresa Kok's blog and verify for yourself whether Malay Mail engages in "fair and accurate reporting" or not.
Malay Mail highlighted 6 comments.
Yet, I count that Teresa Kok's blogs generated easily over 100 comments in articles relating to her ISA detention and the issue of "food quality".
http://teresakok.com/2008/09/25/youll-cringe-as-you-eat/#comments - 10 comments
http://teresakok.com/2008/09/25/syed-hamids-attack-on-murugiah-is-most-disappointing/ - 11 comments
http://teresakok.com/2008/09/24/isa-makanan-anjing/ - 41 comments
http://teresakok.com/2008/09/24/dont-turn-isa-into-outcry-about-dog-food/ - 6 comments
http://teresakok.com/2008/09/22/syed-hamid-patut-cuba-solitary-confinement-sendiri/ - 23 comments
http://teresakok.com/2008/09/22/senator-probes-dog-food-scandal/ - 21 comments
http://teresakok.com/2008/09/19/isa-experience/ - 42 comments
http://teresakok.com/2008/09/19/what-have-i-done-what-have-i-said/ - 10 comments
http://teresakok.com/2008/09/19/detention-is-political/ - 21 comments
Is this the most blatant government propoganda to discredit Teresa Kok amongst the public with no internet access?
***************
Comments from Teresa Kok’s blog
September 26, 2008 Categories: News
When Seputeh member of Parliament Teresa Kok had allegedly described the food served to her during her detention under the ISA as "slightly better than dog food", she could not have predicted the firestorm it would spark off.
Kok’s comments drew numerous postings on her blog (teresakok.com) from Malaysians who recounted their own experiences at having to survive on meagre meals.
$Below are excerpts of the postings.
● Joy_richer:
Did you know that while I was growing up 30 years ago, that was the meal that my grandmother packed for me?
● CRUSADER:
You get to eat eggs and yet you complain. Have you ever thought about those who can’t even afford a decent meal and need to share one egg with the whole family?
There are families who sleep on the earth, not even on cement with cardboard. Rather than taking our taxpayers’ money to upgrade jail facilities, please give it to the needy, not criminals.
● dtecconan:
This is not a matter of the ISA food being bad. The statement you made sounded as though you were insulting those who are used to eating hard-boiled eggs. Maybe your life has been easier, always able to eat good food, so it is easy for you to link what the less privileged usually eat to dog food.
● labu_air:
I was truly saddened by your statement. Dog food or not, whether you realise or not, that is the main course for a large number of Malaysians, not just for weeks but years.
● seetha:
Never mind the food, because nobody has died of starvation in our cells. Of course, we have to provide a decent meal to the detainees and prisoners. There must be international standards regarding this and we have to comply with these standards. The fact that you got two eggs, some curry and something else is far better than many poor Malaysians can afford. Right now, there are many people in the kampung who do not eat as well as this. Even my own sister-in-law is earning RM400 monthly working in a factory and eats plain rice with watery sardine curry every day. So, you have indirectly insulted perhaps one million Malaysians who would love to eat what you got during your detention.
● Think Tank:
The meal fed to you is what many Malaysians, myself included, are eating right now, and you mirrored it to dog food. Don’t forget that we are your voters.
***************
Showing posts with label ISA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ISA. Show all posts
Monday, September 29, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Report lodged against Teresa Kok for insulting egg?
Can anyone insult an egg to the extent that it deserved filing a Police Report? Apparently so. Read here - http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=26013
***************
KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 24, 2008) : The Seputeh Umno Youth division lodged a police report today against Seputeh MP Teresa Kok, claiming she had insulted the Royal Malaysian Police and the egg, which is an essential food of the underprivileged.
The division’s deputy head Alawi Dahalin and several other members lodged the report at the Brickfields police station.
Alawi said he had heard Kok complain about the food she was given while detained under the ISA, at a press conference at the DAP headquarters in Petaling Jaya, shown on the night news on TV on Sept 20, a day after she was released from custody.
He said Kok had said the food she was served was "fit only for dogs".
"By saying this, she had insulted the police and the poor. Eggs are an important food for low-income earners and the poor. As an elected representative of the people she should not have said that," he said.
***************
So, what do you think? As for me, I am simply flabbergasted by UMNO Youth's Police Report! Here's what I think:
1. A "genuine complaint" is not the same thing as an "insult".
2. Teresa Kok had genuine grievances on the quality of food served. The poor quality of food directly contributed to her suffering unnecessarily from diarrheoa. The Malaysian public has the right to know. There is nothing wrong to mention this in the press for ALL Malaysians to know.
3. The Deputy Minister in the PM's Department whose portfolio includes the Public Complaints Bureau sees it fit to even visit Kok personally to inquire - see http://teresakok.com/2008/09/25/syed-hamids-attack-on-murugiah-is-most-disappointing/. However, the Home Minister Syed Hamid thinks otherwise, and threatened Murugiah by saying "Murugiah had better look after his own ministry."! Has Syed Hamid forgotten to bring his brains with him, when he said this to the press?
4. I personally find the flawed and distorted logic employed by UMNO Youth to be simply appalling and unacceptable! The attempt to equate the egg as a food for the under-privileged to gain sympathy or to even imply that Teresa does not understand the under-privileged, is simply downright insulting to all right thinking Malaysians! Isn't egg a food for all Malaysians regardless of social and economic status? :-)
Imagine if all Malaysians are as equally "sensitive". Should all Malaysians then lodge a Police Report against UMNO Youth for insulting the "egg" since the egg is also consumed by the rich, the middle class and the poor alike? Wouldn't the country be completely chaotic if all of us behaved in this frivolous and irresponsible fashion as UMNO Youth?
5. Doesn't UMNO Youth have better things to do than to lodge such frivolous claims and Police Reports?
6. Doesn't the Police have better things to do, real crimes to solve, than to accept frivolous claims from UMNO Youth?
7. Doesn't the Press and the newspapers have better stories to investigate, real news of substance to report, than to be diverted and having to report stupid acts like this? Doesn't UMNO Youth realize this?
8. Doesn't UMNO Youth realize - when looking at the bigger picture - that a much bigger and a far more serious wrong has been committed against Teresa Kok?
Doesn't UMNO Youth realize that detaining Kok under the ISA is simply wrong?
Doesn't UMNO Youth realize that at least 2 other parties - namely a certain exMB and a certain newspaper, and ignoring the role of the Police, the IGP, the Home Minister - are still at large, and still free, even though prima facie evidences indicate that they are the ones responsible for spreading lies to Malaysians which contributed to the wrong and unnecessary detention of Teresa Kok?
9. Doesn't UMNO Youth realize that the primary purpose of ISA detention is "prevention" rather than "punishment"? Isn't this simply wrong to serve anyone under detention with substandard quality food, to the extent of causing diarrheoa?
10. Bakri Musa wrote something which I find beautiful about the Islam religion, and it coincides with my understanding of many of the other worldly religions as well - http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/09/24/pak-lah-desecrating-ramadan/. Allow me to quote what he wrote here:
"As per the teachings of our Prophet, s.a.w., when we see an injustice, we are to do whatever in our capacity to stop it. If we are unable to do so with our hands (that is, physically), then we are to use our tongue (voice our disapproval). Failing that, then at least acknowledge in our heart that we disapprove of it, though that would be the option least pleasing to Allah."
UMNO Youth claims to represent Malaysian Malays and by default Muslims. So, in the case of Teresa Kok's detention under the ISA, is this detention "justice" or "injustice"? When Teresa Kok was served with food that unnecessarily caused her diarrheoa during her unnecessary detention, is this "justice" or "injustice"? When the Police had over a week to investigate and yet found no evidence to justify detaining Kok under the ISA, is this "justice" or "injustice"? If the answers to any one of these 3 questions are "injustice", then, why is UMNO Youth deafeningly silent? Doesn't UMNO Youth realize that remaining silent when an injustic is done is against the teachings of Islam, as quoted by Bakri Musa?
11. Is this action by UMNO Youth a good or bad role model for Malaysian youths? Why should any right-thinking Malaysian youth support UMNO Youth, let alone join such a distorted-thinking party?
12. Is this (filing a Police Report because Teresa insulted egg) UMNO Youth's version of Malaysia Boleh?
13. The world is still laughing hard at Malaysia for sending 50 of its MPs to Taiwan just because of the fear of 916, Malaysia has become a laughing stock in the eyes of the world with a repeat of DSAI's 2nd sodomy charge which is completely unoriginal in its plot, not to mention all the other hillarious acts apparently led and caused by the incapable and incompetent Malaysia Government. Will this latest act by UMNO Youth joins the long-list of "Malaysia Boleh" achievements in cementing Malaysia as a world leader in laughing stock, in the eyes of the entire world?
Sigh!
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Al Jazeera Documentary on ISA
If you prefer to watch a video on ISA than read about the ISA, then, this you-tube video is highly recommended.
Interestingly, this video is dated 9 Sep, which is just 3 days prior to RPK, Tan and Kok's ISA detention yesterday.
For me, what I took away from that video (coupled with my readings and understanding of the ISA) is that the ISA detention law is truly draconian. It strips away the basic, fundamental human rights in many ways once someone is detained under the ISA. It puts far too much power on a select few in the ruling government to decide who is a threat to national security. As the comedian said - if I don't like the colour of your hair and detain you under the ISA, there's nothing you can do against that. And worse, the grounds for the detention can never be challenged in a court of law. Furthermore, detention can be indefinite. Literally, if you are detained under ISA, the fate of the rest of your life rests in the hands of a select few, namely the Home Minister and the Prime Minister. Which means for the rest of your mortal life, if you seek freedom from ISA detention, then, they would be your God as long as they remain the ruling government.
Every right thinking Malaysian must ask for the ISA to be abolished or amended substantially so that fundamental human rights are still preserved. I don't know if the latter is possible, but human rights groups all over are calling for ISA to be abolished completely, and to be replaced with existing, more transparent laws.
If your streamyx connection is slow, pause the video, and it should continue to download. Go away, do something else, and come back later and play it.
People & Power - Malaysia's Internal Security Act - 9 Sep 08
Why Raja Petra, Tan and Kok were detained?
Published in The Star today - http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/9/13/nation/2022372&sec=nation
Yesterday, human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz blogged this when RPK was first arrested:
_______________
"The Government must also do its part and explain clearly how RPK is a threat to national security and why he has been detained. He had presented himself everytime he was asked to at police stations and in court. ..."
_______________
I shared his opinion as I blogged here last night - http://fusioninvestor.blogspot.com/2008/09/rpk-detained-under-isa.html
Why? Because only by giving clear explanation will the Government have a chance to win back Rakyat's trust. Without a clear explanation, the Government will create even more distrusts amongst Rakyat.
Unfortunately for the Government, they continue to choose to give a vague explanation, and created even more distrusts amongst Rakyat:
"PETALING JAYA: Malaysia Today news portal editor Raja Petra Kamarudin was arrested under the Internal Security Act for allegedly being a threat to security, peace and public order.
Raja Petra, 58, who was arrested under Section 73(1) of the ISA, is alleged to have posted articles deemed seditious and that also belittle Islam."
Instead of explaining HOW RPK is a threat to national security, the 2 sentence above simply asserted that he is a threat.
When one simply say X = Y, logically, does the assertion make it so?
Yes, in public relations exercises, it is a well known principle since Hitler's time that when X = Y is repeated with enough times, more and more people can be led to believe that X = Y so long as the truth is suppressed and the economy is fine. But those were the days before the Internet.
Today, such an article in The Star has little impact.
It leaves Rakyat wondering HOW is RPK a threat to national security.
It leaves Rakyat wondering if ISA Detention can be used against anyone that the Government doesn't like.
It leaves Rakyat wondering what wrong have RPK committed?
Again, the charge is RPK is alleged to have posted articles deemed seditious.
The Government has simply not explained HOW it is seditious.
As a long-time MT reader, I can say that I have personally never found any one of MT's article seditious when I read them.
So, if its readers don't find it seditious, it begs the question by all right-thinking Malaysians - who finds it seditious?
The Government has also charged that it belittles Islam.
Again, HOW does it belittle Islam?
Specifically and exactly which part of RPK's writings is the problem?
If the Government cannot be transparent with the problem, if the newspapers cannot even quote or even refer to the problem, how can the Government expects bloggers to know the solution?
How can Rakyat knows what to write and what not to write when the big stick - as draconian as the ISA - is used on something with Rakyat doesn't know?
All great religion teaches us to not fear the truth.
To seek the truth at all times.
What does the Government fear?
Why can't the Government point to specific article - specific paragraph - specific sentence that shows how RPK belittled Islam?
Because I for one - as a regular reader of MT - have yet to find any of RPK's article belittling Islam or any other religion, despite reading thousands of MT articles.
But I'm willing to be corrected and I keep an open mind.
I do differentiate between the article written by RPK, against the individual comments that do not belong to RPK.
If the Government has a problem with certain individual commentators, then, point out specifically the problem comment and who commented that, so that RPK is given the chance to explain why he left it there and not delete it or ban that commentator, etc.
In other words, why is such a trivial issue (disliking comments) requires such a draconian act like the ISA to resolve?
Doesn't the Government realize that in blogosphere, every blogger - not just in Malaysia but around the world - is theoretically exposed to the same problem of extreme commentators? Is every blogger in the world a criminal to the same extent as RPK and deserves ISA detention? Surely not! There are more bloggers in this world than there is space in the entire Malaysia, let alone Kamunting Detention Centre!
So, notwitstanding The Star article which simply doesn't explain anything or add anything new and merely repeats the same message which led me to think it is simply Government Propoganda, I strongly urge the Government to please clearly explain to Rakyat exactly HOW is RPK a threat to national security?
Similarly, I urge the Government to do the same for Tan and Kok.
Explain to us Clearly HOW these 3 individuals are a threat to national security.
Explain to us Clearly HOW individuals like Ahmad Ismail is NOT a threat to national security.
Otherwise, don't be surprised if Rakyat comes to the conclusion that since Ahmad Ismail is an UMNO member, the Government plays favoritism, by detaining others except UMNO members.
And don't be surprised if Rakyat comes to the conclusion that the present Government simply don't have Rakyat's best interests in minds, despite the constant rhetorics.
And don't be surprised if more and more Rakyat prefers Pakatan Rakyat to be the next ruling Government.
In conclusion, I strongly urge The Government to either explain clearly how the 3 individuals are a threat to national security, explain clearly how the 3 individuals have caused social unrest, test these assertions openly and transparently in the court of law.
Or if not, release them immediately. And repeal the draconian ISA.
Yesterday, human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz blogged this when RPK was first arrested:
_______________
"The Government must also do its part and explain clearly how RPK is a threat to national security and why he has been detained. He had presented himself everytime he was asked to at police stations and in court. ..."
_______________
I shared his opinion as I blogged here last night - http://fusioninvestor.blogspot.com/2008/09/rpk-detained-under-isa.html
Why? Because only by giving clear explanation will the Government have a chance to win back Rakyat's trust. Without a clear explanation, the Government will create even more distrusts amongst Rakyat.
Unfortunately for the Government, they continue to choose to give a vague explanation, and created even more distrusts amongst Rakyat:
"PETALING JAYA: Malaysia Today news portal editor Raja Petra Kamarudin was arrested under the Internal Security Act for allegedly being a threat to security, peace and public order.
Raja Petra, 58, who was arrested under Section 73(1) of the ISA, is alleged to have posted articles deemed seditious and that also belittle Islam."
Instead of explaining HOW RPK is a threat to national security, the 2 sentence above simply asserted that he is a threat.
When one simply say X = Y, logically, does the assertion make it so?
Yes, in public relations exercises, it is a well known principle since Hitler's time that when X = Y is repeated with enough times, more and more people can be led to believe that X = Y so long as the truth is suppressed and the economy is fine. But those were the days before the Internet.
Today, such an article in The Star has little impact.
It leaves Rakyat wondering HOW is RPK a threat to national security.
It leaves Rakyat wondering if ISA Detention can be used against anyone that the Government doesn't like.
It leaves Rakyat wondering what wrong have RPK committed?
Again, the charge is RPK is alleged to have posted articles deemed seditious.
The Government has simply not explained HOW it is seditious.
As a long-time MT reader, I can say that I have personally never found any one of MT's article seditious when I read them.
So, if its readers don't find it seditious, it begs the question by all right-thinking Malaysians - who finds it seditious?
The Government has also charged that it belittles Islam.
Again, HOW does it belittle Islam?
Specifically and exactly which part of RPK's writings is the problem?
If the Government cannot be transparent with the problem, if the newspapers cannot even quote or even refer to the problem, how can the Government expects bloggers to know the solution?
How can Rakyat knows what to write and what not to write when the big stick - as draconian as the ISA - is used on something with Rakyat doesn't know?
All great religion teaches us to not fear the truth.
To seek the truth at all times.
What does the Government fear?
Why can't the Government point to specific article - specific paragraph - specific sentence that shows how RPK belittled Islam?
Because I for one - as a regular reader of MT - have yet to find any of RPK's article belittling Islam or any other religion, despite reading thousands of MT articles.
But I'm willing to be corrected and I keep an open mind.
I do differentiate between the article written by RPK, against the individual comments that do not belong to RPK.
If the Government has a problem with certain individual commentators, then, point out specifically the problem comment and who commented that, so that RPK is given the chance to explain why he left it there and not delete it or ban that commentator, etc.
In other words, why is such a trivial issue (disliking comments) requires such a draconian act like the ISA to resolve?
Doesn't the Government realize that in blogosphere, every blogger - not just in Malaysia but around the world - is theoretically exposed to the same problem of extreme commentators? Is every blogger in the world a criminal to the same extent as RPK and deserves ISA detention? Surely not! There are more bloggers in this world than there is space in the entire Malaysia, let alone Kamunting Detention Centre!
So, notwitstanding The Star article which simply doesn't explain anything or add anything new and merely repeats the same message which led me to think it is simply Government Propoganda, I strongly urge the Government to please clearly explain to Rakyat exactly HOW is RPK a threat to national security?
Similarly, I urge the Government to do the same for Tan and Kok.
Explain to us Clearly HOW these 3 individuals are a threat to national security.
Explain to us Clearly HOW individuals like Ahmad Ismail is NOT a threat to national security.
Otherwise, don't be surprised if Rakyat comes to the conclusion that since Ahmad Ismail is an UMNO member, the Government plays favoritism, by detaining others except UMNO members.
And don't be surprised if Rakyat comes to the conclusion that the present Government simply don't have Rakyat's best interests in minds, despite the constant rhetorics.
And don't be surprised if more and more Rakyat prefers Pakatan Rakyat to be the next ruling Government.
In conclusion, I strongly urge The Government to either explain clearly how the 3 individuals are a threat to national security, explain clearly how the 3 individuals have caused social unrest, test these assertions openly and transparently in the court of law.
Or if not, release them immediately. And repeal the draconian ISA.
Friday, September 12, 2008
RPK detained under ISA
By now, you will have heard that RPK (or Raja Petra Kamaruddin, the author of the highly popular Malaysia Today website) has been detained under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) today.
The MT (Malaysia Today) website is highly popular with its readers - many will be hugely upset with the latest arrest. The current political climate is still fragile with 916 looming and the very recent racist remarks. As tensions run high, it is even more important to remain calm, be fully informed, and do not over-react at all times. The last thing we want is another May 13, 1969 or another Ops Lalang with the Opposition rounded up.
A show of solidarity has been planned for RPK at Kelana Jaya Stadium at 8 pm, Monday, 15 September 2008. Please attend, if you are able.
**********************
Until then, this is a perfect opportunity to be fully informed on issues relating to ISA. For example, what is the ISA? How can someone like RPK can be arrested under ISA? What is the history of ISA and is this still relevant today? Why is it "draconian"?
As many of you will know, Wikipedia and Google are 2 of my favorite resources. Wiki carries a relatively good info on the ISA here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Security_Act_(Malaysia). I will extract and highlight some of the parts which I think could be relevant, and provide my commentaries also within the context of RPK's detention.
What is the ISA?
The Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) (Malay: Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri) is basically a preventive detention law.
In essence, it allows anyone to be arrested without the need for trial in certain defined circumstances (see below).
History of ISA
ISA 1960 was actually inherited by Malaysia after it gained independence from Britain in 1957.
Preventive detention first became a feature of the then Malaya in 1948 primarily to combat the armed insurgency of the Malayan Communist Party.
The Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948 was made, following the proclamation of an emergency, by the British High Commissioner Sir Edward Gent. It allowed the detention of persons for any period not exceeding one year.
The 1948 ordinance was primarily made to counter acts of violence and, conceivably, preventive detention was meant to be temporary in application. The emergency ended in 1960 and with it ended the powers contained in the that ordinance as it was repealed.
The power of preventive detention was however not relinquished. In 1960, the government passed the Internal Security Act under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution.
How does ISA work?
In essence, ISA permits the detention, at the discretion of the Home Minister, without charge or trial of any person in respect of whom the Home Minister was satisfied that such detention was necessary to prevent him or her from acting in any manner prejudicial:
(a) to national security or
(b) to the maintenance of essential services or
(c) to the economic life in Malaysia.
(Section 8(1) of the ISA)
Under what grounds is RPK arrested under ISA?
To be honest, I am not sure at this point in time what is the reason for RPK's detention. In my simplistic lay-person mind:
(a) I simply just cannot see how RPK nor the MT website is a threat to national security. Especially when compared to remarks uttered by Ahmad Ismail, and many other worse acts done in the past, such as Hishamuddin's keris antics, or even DPM Najib's keris bathing with Chinese blood remarks in the late 80s.
(b) I also simply cannot see how RPK or the MT website will affect the maintenance of essential services. Especially in Malaysian context where maintenance of essential services is done at variable standards ranging from excellent to extremely poor.
(c) And I seriously doubt how RPK or the MT website is prejudicial to the economic life in Malaysia.
So, I am extremely puzzled as to why RPK is being detained.
Malik Imtiaz, a human rights lawyer and a blogger has this to say in his blog here - http://malikimtiaz.blogspot.com/2008/09/rpk-isa-and-rest-of-us.html
I quote: "The Government must also do its part and explain clearly how RPK is a threat to national security and why he has been detained. He had presented himself everytime he was asked to at police stations and in court. He has been charged, has not attempted to flee the jurisdiction and has indicated his desire to defend himself in court. Access to Malaysia Today has been permitted. And though four police reports have recently been lodged against him by agencies linked to the Government, a consideration of those police reports in the bigger picture would reveal the unreasonableness of his being detained on the basis of what has been alleged in those reports. The Government must make the basis of its decision clear and why it is RPK cannot be tried in an open court."
To me, the key words are "Explain CLEARLY". Not just any vague explanation. It must be clear that when first explained, most people can honestly say "yes, I understand". It must also be capable of withstanding reasonably intelligent scrutiny.
According to Wiki: Article 151 of the Malaysian Constitution gives to any person detained without trial (under the special powers against subversion) certain administrative rights. By the terms of Article 151 the authority, on whose order a person is detained, shall, as soon as may be, inform the detainee of the grounds of detention and the allegations of fact on which the order is based.
According to MT here, the grounds of detention has been given: http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/12576/84/
4:00pm Marina's recieved a 'notis penangkapan' from Chief Inspector Azrin Abu Bakar, stated reason of detention. The notice sounds like this:
"...penulis telah menyiarkan rencana-rencana di laman web memburukkan kepimpinan negara dan menghina kesucian agama Islam sehingga menimbulkan kekeliruan kepada rakyat..."
Huh?
He's being detained because he has confused Rakyat?
Is this a valid reason to detain someone indefinitely under the ISA?
Oh dear!
If anything, RPK's writings have clarified a lot of things that has been happening in this country, instead of causing greater confusion. How can one confuses things when one speaks the truth? Specifically, which part - which article - which paragraph - which sentence - of his writing is supposed to have caused "confusion to Rakyat"?
And what is the implication of this alleged "confusion"? Is the impact of the alleged confusion on Malaysian society so bad that it deserved indefinite detention without trial? Why can't RPK be charged and trialed in the open court as he has demanded many times before?
Furthermore, is his case really that serious, when compared to numerous other people in this country that have "caused substantially far larger confusion to Rakyat"? For example, Ahmad Ismail? If Ahmad Ismail is not detained under ISA, then, why should RPK be detained when his article has far lesser elements of racism?
Dear, oh dear! I am sorry Mr Home Minister, but I simply failed to understand the grounds of RPK's detention.
It simply seemed grossly unfair to any right thinking Malaysian.
You will need to do a better job at CLEARLY EXPLAINING to Rakyat why you are detaining RPK indefinitely under the ISA.
And this thing about alleging RPK to "give a bad name to the current leaders of the country". What exactly are these "bad names"? Notwitstanding that, can anyone honestly say that whatever bad names that have been uttered, are they not deserving? Surely our country's leaders are not surprised that millions of Malaysians have been giving "bad names" to our country's leaders well before Mar 8 GE results? Did the leaders change? What about after Aug 26 Permatang Pauh by-elections results? And the government only charge RPK under ISA today, on Sep 12 2008, which is 4 days prior to 916?
And the alleged insult on the Islam Religion - as a regular MT reader, I am extremely puzzled since my own personal experience reading thousands of his articles gave me a reasonably good impression of him as a genuine Muslim, and it simply didn't occur to me at all that he would deliberately insult Islam. In fact, I cannot recall a single instance when he insulted Islam! And I am certainly not confused as a result of reading his writings. If the truth be told, I am actually very confused with the grounds for RPK's ISA detention which have yet to be given in substance, than his writings.
Length of ISA Detention
A person detained under the ISA during the first 60 days is held incommunicado, with no access to the outside world. Furthermore, lawyers and family members are not allowed access to the detainee during this initial period.
If a two-year detention order is signed, the detainee is taken to the Kamunting Detention Centre to serve his or her two-year term, during which family members are allowed to visit.
The power to detain seems to be restricted by Section 8(1) to a period not exceeding two years but the restriction is really illusionary because, by virtue of Section 8(7), the duration of the detention order may be extended for a further period not exceeding two years and thereafter for further periods not exceeding two years at a time.
The extension to the detention order may be made on the same ground as those on which the original order was based, or on different grounds.
In short, the length of detention can be indefinite.
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) has recently recommended that the ISA be repealed and replaced by new comprehensive legislation that, while taking a tough stand on threats to national security (including terrorism), does not violate basic human rights.
It would be interesting to see if SUHAKAM will come out with a statement demanding for an immediate release for RPK, further to my earlier article on Muhammad Shafee Abdullah here questioning if both are the same or different person -
http://fusioninvestor.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-this-same-muhammad-shafee-abdullah.html
Criticisms of the ISA
The ISA is one of the most controversial Acts enacted under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution.
According to Wiki: "Malaysia is one of the few countries in the world whose Constitution allows for preventive detention during peacetime without safeguards that elsewhere are understood to be basic requirements for protecting fundamental human rights. "
Not surprisingly, the Opposition has criticized the ISA for many reasons. The implementation is often labelled as a political tool by the ruling government to suppress the Opposition, rather than genuine preventive detention for national security or other reasons specified in the ISA law. For example, many of the Opposition members in the past (e.g. those from PAS, PKR and DAP) have been detained under ISA before and subsequently released.
Furthermore, according to Opposition leader Tan Chee Koon ... "This infernal and heinous instrument has been enacted by the Alliance Government at a time when the emergency was supposed to be over. Then it promptly proceeds to embody all the provisions of the Emergency Regulations which during the Emergency had to be re-enacted every year, but now it is written into the statute book ad infinitum...
The fact that it is a violation of fundamental human rights cannot be disputed. For example, the detention without trial aspect. Imagine simply being locked up for an indefinite period, with absolutely no right to even be trialed in court, and no opportunity to even prove one's innocence, or to even defend oneself against charges by the government. Or the indefinite period detention aspect, instead of a limited period. Or the detention being made at complete discretion of the Home Minister aspect - there are so many flaws here, where arbitariness would inevitably come into consideration (since there is no clearly written guidelines and case-by-case interpretation can potentially vary extremely widely). Also, changes in Home Ministers, or changes in Prime Ministers, or changes in ruling government, or simply a change over time, or for any other reaon could result in different absolute or relative standards being applied as to the grounds of the ISA detention with varying degrees of un/fairness. And so forth.
But the surprise is that even BN and UMNO has criticized ISA in the past too, including Badawi and Mahathir previously!
In 1987: Badawi stated "Laws such as the Internal Security Act have no place in modern Malaysia. It is a draconian and barbaric law."
In 1988: Badawi went on record to state "If we want to save Malaysia and Umno, Dr Mahathir (then Prime Minister) must be removed. He uses draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act to silence his critics."
In 2003 when Badawi became Prime Minister: the ISA "a necessary law," !
Badawi further said "We have never misused the Internal Security Act. All those detained under the Internal Security Act are proven threats to society."
Oh dear! With RPK's detention, has Badawi done another flip-flop again? How will he now explain that RPK's detention under ISA is "never misuse"? Where are the "proven threats" by RPK?
Not surprisingly, Mahathir is also similar in his duplicity with the ISA:
In 1966: when Mahathir spoke out in support of the Internal Security (Amendment) Bill 1966 as a backbencher, he stated that "no one in his right senses like[s] the ISA. It is in fact a negation of all the principles of democracy."; However, after becoming Prime Minister, he had little if any hesitation using the law to suppressed what he termed racialism but was seen by some as a move against his political opponents, the most notable of events being the infamous Operasi Lalang in 1987.
(And as an aside, one did not hear him promoting the use of ISA against Ahmad Ismail to "suppressed racialism" too.)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer by experience, training nor profession. This is merely a layperson's current personal understanding of ISA formed by applying independent critical thinking based on various related materials on the topic. If you require pesonal assistance on ISA, please consult your own professional legal advisor.
The MT (Malaysia Today) website is highly popular with its readers - many will be hugely upset with the latest arrest. The current political climate is still fragile with 916 looming and the very recent racist remarks. As tensions run high, it is even more important to remain calm, be fully informed, and do not over-react at all times. The last thing we want is another May 13, 1969 or another Ops Lalang with the Opposition rounded up.
A show of solidarity has been planned for RPK at Kelana Jaya Stadium at 8 pm, Monday, 15 September 2008. Please attend, if you are able.
**********************
Until then, this is a perfect opportunity to be fully informed on issues relating to ISA. For example, what is the ISA? How can someone like RPK can be arrested under ISA? What is the history of ISA and is this still relevant today? Why is it "draconian"?
As many of you will know, Wikipedia and Google are 2 of my favorite resources. Wiki carries a relatively good info on the ISA here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Security_Act_(Malaysia). I will extract and highlight some of the parts which I think could be relevant, and provide my commentaries also within the context of RPK's detention.
What is the ISA?
The Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) (Malay: Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri) is basically a preventive detention law.
In essence, it allows anyone to be arrested without the need for trial in certain defined circumstances (see below).
History of ISA
ISA 1960 was actually inherited by Malaysia after it gained independence from Britain in 1957.
Preventive detention first became a feature of the then Malaya in 1948 primarily to combat the armed insurgency of the Malayan Communist Party.
The Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948 was made, following the proclamation of an emergency, by the British High Commissioner Sir Edward Gent. It allowed the detention of persons for any period not exceeding one year.
The 1948 ordinance was primarily made to counter acts of violence and, conceivably, preventive detention was meant to be temporary in application. The emergency ended in 1960 and with it ended the powers contained in the that ordinance as it was repealed.
The power of preventive detention was however not relinquished. In 1960, the government passed the Internal Security Act under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution.
How does ISA work?
In essence, ISA permits the detention, at the discretion of the Home Minister, without charge or trial of any person in respect of whom the Home Minister was satisfied that such detention was necessary to prevent him or her from acting in any manner prejudicial:
(a) to national security or
(b) to the maintenance of essential services or
(c) to the economic life in Malaysia.
(Section 8(1) of the ISA)
Under what grounds is RPK arrested under ISA?
To be honest, I am not sure at this point in time what is the reason for RPK's detention. In my simplistic lay-person mind:
(a) I simply just cannot see how RPK nor the MT website is a threat to national security. Especially when compared to remarks uttered by Ahmad Ismail, and many other worse acts done in the past, such as Hishamuddin's keris antics, or even DPM Najib's keris bathing with Chinese blood remarks in the late 80s.
(b) I also simply cannot see how RPK or the MT website will affect the maintenance of essential services. Especially in Malaysian context where maintenance of essential services is done at variable standards ranging from excellent to extremely poor.
(c) And I seriously doubt how RPK or the MT website is prejudicial to the economic life in Malaysia.
So, I am extremely puzzled as to why RPK is being detained.
Malik Imtiaz, a human rights lawyer and a blogger has this to say in his blog here - http://malikimtiaz.blogspot.com/2008/09/rpk-isa-and-rest-of-us.html
I quote: "The Government must also do its part and explain clearly how RPK is a threat to national security and why he has been detained. He had presented himself everytime he was asked to at police stations and in court. He has been charged, has not attempted to flee the jurisdiction and has indicated his desire to defend himself in court. Access to Malaysia Today has been permitted. And though four police reports have recently been lodged against him by agencies linked to the Government, a consideration of those police reports in the bigger picture would reveal the unreasonableness of his being detained on the basis of what has been alleged in those reports. The Government must make the basis of its decision clear and why it is RPK cannot be tried in an open court."
To me, the key words are "Explain CLEARLY". Not just any vague explanation. It must be clear that when first explained, most people can honestly say "yes, I understand". It must also be capable of withstanding reasonably intelligent scrutiny.
According to Wiki: Article 151 of the Malaysian Constitution gives to any person detained without trial (under the special powers against subversion) certain administrative rights. By the terms of Article 151 the authority, on whose order a person is detained, shall, as soon as may be, inform the detainee of the grounds of detention and the allegations of fact on which the order is based.
According to MT here, the grounds of detention has been given: http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/12576/84/
4:00pm Marina's recieved a 'notis penangkapan' from Chief Inspector Azrin Abu Bakar, stated reason of detention. The notice sounds like this:
"...penulis telah menyiarkan rencana-rencana di laman web memburukkan kepimpinan negara dan menghina kesucian agama Islam sehingga menimbulkan kekeliruan kepada rakyat..."
Huh?
He's being detained because he has confused Rakyat?
Is this a valid reason to detain someone indefinitely under the ISA?
Oh dear!
If anything, RPK's writings have clarified a lot of things that has been happening in this country, instead of causing greater confusion. How can one confuses things when one speaks the truth? Specifically, which part - which article - which paragraph - which sentence - of his writing is supposed to have caused "confusion to Rakyat"?
And what is the implication of this alleged "confusion"? Is the impact of the alleged confusion on Malaysian society so bad that it deserved indefinite detention without trial? Why can't RPK be charged and trialed in the open court as he has demanded many times before?
Furthermore, is his case really that serious, when compared to numerous other people in this country that have "caused substantially far larger confusion to Rakyat"? For example, Ahmad Ismail? If Ahmad Ismail is not detained under ISA, then, why should RPK be detained when his article has far lesser elements of racism?
Dear, oh dear! I am sorry Mr Home Minister, but I simply failed to understand the grounds of RPK's detention.
It simply seemed grossly unfair to any right thinking Malaysian.
You will need to do a better job at CLEARLY EXPLAINING to Rakyat why you are detaining RPK indefinitely under the ISA.
And this thing about alleging RPK to "give a bad name to the current leaders of the country". What exactly are these "bad names"? Notwitstanding that, can anyone honestly say that whatever bad names that have been uttered, are they not deserving? Surely our country's leaders are not surprised that millions of Malaysians have been giving "bad names" to our country's leaders well before Mar 8 GE results? Did the leaders change? What about after Aug 26 Permatang Pauh by-elections results? And the government only charge RPK under ISA today, on Sep 12 2008, which is 4 days prior to 916?
And the alleged insult on the Islam Religion - as a regular MT reader, I am extremely puzzled since my own personal experience reading thousands of his articles gave me a reasonably good impression of him as a genuine Muslim, and it simply didn't occur to me at all that he would deliberately insult Islam. In fact, I cannot recall a single instance when he insulted Islam! And I am certainly not confused as a result of reading his writings. If the truth be told, I am actually very confused with the grounds for RPK's ISA detention which have yet to be given in substance, than his writings.
Length of ISA Detention
A person detained under the ISA during the first 60 days is held incommunicado, with no access to the outside world. Furthermore, lawyers and family members are not allowed access to the detainee during this initial period.
If a two-year detention order is signed, the detainee is taken to the Kamunting Detention Centre to serve his or her two-year term, during which family members are allowed to visit.
The power to detain seems to be restricted by Section 8(1) to a period not exceeding two years but the restriction is really illusionary because, by virtue of Section 8(7), the duration of the detention order may be extended for a further period not exceeding two years and thereafter for further periods not exceeding two years at a time.
The extension to the detention order may be made on the same ground as those on which the original order was based, or on different grounds.
In short, the length of detention can be indefinite.
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) has recently recommended that the ISA be repealed and replaced by new comprehensive legislation that, while taking a tough stand on threats to national security (including terrorism), does not violate basic human rights.
It would be interesting to see if SUHAKAM will come out with a statement demanding for an immediate release for RPK, further to my earlier article on Muhammad Shafee Abdullah here questioning if both are the same or different person -
http://fusioninvestor.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-this-same-muhammad-shafee-abdullah.html
Criticisms of the ISA
The ISA is one of the most controversial Acts enacted under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution.
According to Wiki: "Malaysia is one of the few countries in the world whose Constitution allows for preventive detention during peacetime without safeguards that elsewhere are understood to be basic requirements for protecting fundamental human rights. "
Not surprisingly, the Opposition has criticized the ISA for many reasons. The implementation is often labelled as a political tool by the ruling government to suppress the Opposition, rather than genuine preventive detention for national security or other reasons specified in the ISA law. For example, many of the Opposition members in the past (e.g. those from PAS, PKR and DAP) have been detained under ISA before and subsequently released.
Furthermore, according to Opposition leader Tan Chee Koon ... "This infernal and heinous instrument has been enacted by the Alliance Government at a time when the emergency was supposed to be over. Then it promptly proceeds to embody all the provisions of the Emergency Regulations which during the Emergency had to be re-enacted every year, but now it is written into the statute book ad infinitum...
The fact that it is a violation of fundamental human rights cannot be disputed. For example, the detention without trial aspect. Imagine simply being locked up for an indefinite period, with absolutely no right to even be trialed in court, and no opportunity to even prove one's innocence, or to even defend oneself against charges by the government. Or the indefinite period detention aspect, instead of a limited period. Or the detention being made at complete discretion of the Home Minister aspect - there are so many flaws here, where arbitariness would inevitably come into consideration (since there is no clearly written guidelines and case-by-case interpretation can potentially vary extremely widely). Also, changes in Home Ministers, or changes in Prime Ministers, or changes in ruling government, or simply a change over time, or for any other reaon could result in different absolute or relative standards being applied as to the grounds of the ISA detention with varying degrees of un/fairness. And so forth.
But the surprise is that even BN and UMNO has criticized ISA in the past too, including Badawi and Mahathir previously!
In 1987: Badawi stated "Laws such as the Internal Security Act have no place in modern Malaysia. It is a draconian and barbaric law."
In 1988: Badawi went on record to state "If we want to save Malaysia and Umno, Dr Mahathir (then Prime Minister) must be removed. He uses draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act to silence his critics."
In 2003 when Badawi became Prime Minister: the ISA "a necessary law," !
Badawi further said "We have never misused the Internal Security Act. All those detained under the Internal Security Act are proven threats to society."
Oh dear! With RPK's detention, has Badawi done another flip-flop again? How will he now explain that RPK's detention under ISA is "never misuse"? Where are the "proven threats" by RPK?
Not surprisingly, Mahathir is also similar in his duplicity with the ISA:
In 1966: when Mahathir spoke out in support of the Internal Security (Amendment) Bill 1966 as a backbencher, he stated that "no one in his right senses like[s] the ISA. It is in fact a negation of all the principles of democracy."; However, after becoming Prime Minister, he had little if any hesitation using the law to suppressed what he termed racialism but was seen by some as a move against his political opponents, the most notable of events being the infamous Operasi Lalang in 1987.
(And as an aside, one did not hear him promoting the use of ISA against Ahmad Ismail to "suppressed racialism" too.)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer by experience, training nor profession. This is merely a layperson's current personal understanding of ISA formed by applying independent critical thinking based on various related materials on the topic. If you require pesonal assistance on ISA, please consult your own professional legal advisor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)