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.
Showing posts with label RPK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RPK. Show all posts
Saturday, September 13, 2008
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.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Malaysia Today has no respect for religion: Syed Hamid?
Link here - http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/8/30/nation/20080830182005&sec=nation
My question is - is this the best that they can come up with? A general reason that says "No respect for religion"?
Let me quote Syed Hamid & SKMM in italics red, so that you can form your own opinion whether the government's explanation to censor Malaysia Today website is adequate or not.
"The Malaysia Today news portal has no respect at all for religion even though the topic is very sensitive and the "fire of religion" could cause chaos and havoc"
Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?
"this did not mean it could be used to disparage, defame, libel and circulate untruths without boundaries and restraint, and that the Government has a responsibility to act in the name of public interest."
Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?
"you must not create public fear, or send a message that would cause uncertainty and a lot of damage to the country in terms of public confidence and investor confidence,"
Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?
"The SKMM head Mohamed Shahril Mohamed Tarmizi told Utusan that the ban against Malaysia Today was because an article in the website had tried to draw parallels of the Holy Prophet to the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden."
Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?
As a general comment, I am a daily MT reader, and quote a lot of articles in MT in my blog here. Everyday, I try to make it a point to read every single article in MT. If for some reason I could not read it today, I will try to catch up the next day, if not the day after.
Since last year, my conservative estimate is that I must have read at least 3,000 MT articles, or very conservatively say 10 a day over the last 300 days.
And not even once have I come across this article that "draw parallels of the Holy Prophet to the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden.". If I did, I certainly don't remember it. And I certainly did not felt fear. And I would not run around creating chaos and havoc as Syed Hamid claims.
In fact, logically speaking, if it did create chaos and havoc, wouldn't you and I already know? I mean if it doesn't create chaos and havoc today, yesterday, 2 days ago, 3 days ago, then, how old exactly is this article? And why censor MT at 6 PM on August 26?
As for creating public fear, if RPK's article did it, I expect the root cause to be the participants in the message and not the messenger.
So, I repeat - Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?
""I thought personally when they (SKMM) took action - under current developments - that we were very slow to take action even though we are hurt very badly so often," he added."
Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?
Other comments:
I have been extremely patient with the government, but from what I've seen so far, despite the numerous newspaper articles and despite the numerous explanations by Syed Hamid, I remain unconvinced, despite trying to keep an extremely open mind to the possibility.
But to date, they have not yet even mentioned the specific article, the specific date, nor even quote the specific paragraph!
I must therefore now come to this conclusion:
Is the government publicly lying to us?
My question is - is this the best that they can come up with? A general reason that says "No respect for religion"?
Let me quote Syed Hamid & SKMM in italics red, so that you can form your own opinion whether the government's explanation to censor Malaysia Today website is adequate or not.
"The Malaysia Today news portal has no respect at all for religion even though the topic is very sensitive and the "fire of religion" could cause chaos and havoc"
Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?
"this did not mean it could be used to disparage, defame, libel and circulate untruths without boundaries and restraint, and that the Government has a responsibility to act in the name of public interest."
Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?
"you must not create public fear, or send a message that would cause uncertainty and a lot of damage to the country in terms of public confidence and investor confidence,"
Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?
"The SKMM head Mohamed Shahril Mohamed Tarmizi told Utusan that the ban against Malaysia Today was because an article in the website had tried to draw parallels of the Holy Prophet to the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden."
Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?
As a general comment, I am a daily MT reader, and quote a lot of articles in MT in my blog here. Everyday, I try to make it a point to read every single article in MT. If for some reason I could not read it today, I will try to catch up the next day, if not the day after.
Since last year, my conservative estimate is that I must have read at least 3,000 MT articles, or very conservatively say 10 a day over the last 300 days.
And not even once have I come across this article that "draw parallels of the Holy Prophet to the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden.". If I did, I certainly don't remember it. And I certainly did not felt fear. And I would not run around creating chaos and havoc as Syed Hamid claims.
In fact, logically speaking, if it did create chaos and havoc, wouldn't you and I already know? I mean if it doesn't create chaos and havoc today, yesterday, 2 days ago, 3 days ago, then, how old exactly is this article? And why censor MT at 6 PM on August 26?
As for creating public fear, if RPK's article did it, I expect the root cause to be the participants in the message and not the messenger.
So, I repeat - Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?
""I thought personally when they (SKMM) took action - under current developments - that we were very slow to take action even though we are hurt very badly so often," he added."
Too general. Presumptive. Which article? Which date? Which paragraph?
Other comments:
I have been extremely patient with the government, but from what I've seen so far, despite the numerous newspaper articles and despite the numerous explanations by Syed Hamid, I remain unconvinced, despite trying to keep an extremely open mind to the possibility.
But to date, they have not yet even mentioned the specific article, the specific date, nor even quote the specific paragraph!
I must therefore now come to this conclusion:
Is the government publicly lying to us?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Syed Hamid tells why Malaysia Today was blocked
As with every right thinking Malaysian, I was initially shocked when I first discovered that the highly popular Malaysia Today website was blocked under the orders of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (SKMM).
However, I was even more shocked by the government response here - http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/11945/84/. Original article in italics red, my thoughts in brackets:
(The Star) - The controversial Malaysia Today news portal was blocked by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (SKMM) because its editor ignored many warning letters, Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said.
[Seng: Ok. This is interesting. Who sent the warning letters? SKMM?
What were the nature of the warning letters?
Warn the editor of what?
How many letters were sent altogether?
What were the dates of these letters?]
“When they publish things that are libellous, slanderous or defamatory, it is natural for the SKMM to act against these websites whenever necessary,” he told a a press conference at Parliament lobby yesterday.
[Seng: This is extremely puzzling.
On what basis did SKMM decide that MT contents were "libellous, slanderous or defamatory"?
Does SKMM have the same power, authority and competency as the legal courts to be able to define, decide and determine what is "libellous, slanderous or defamatory"?
Can SKMM make this decision alone and independently, to the extent of censoring Malaysia Today on the same day as the Permatang Pauh by-election day?
Or was SKMM merely following the orders of its superiors?
But then, shouldn't the SKMM - Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission - be guided by its own mandate and law especially the COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA ACT - http://www.msc.com.my/cyberlaws/act_communications.asp? ]
Syed Hamid said SKMM was only exercising its powers.
[Seng: Again, I am puzzled SKMM can exercise its powers on the same day as PP by-election date.
Why not exercise earlier?
What caused SKMM to suddenly feel that MT articles at approximately 6 PM, 26 August, is suddenly "libellous, slanderous or defamatory?]
“We do not intend to curtail people’s freedom or right to express themselves. Everyone is subjected to the law, even websites and blogs,” he added.
On Wednesday, Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamarudin lashed out against the blocking of the online portal, saying it was a breach of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) charter.
Under the MSC Malaysia 10-Point Bill of Guarantees, the Government promised to “ensure no Internet censorship”.
It was reported that all 21 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the country had been ordered by SKMM to block the controversial website.
The notices were sent out on Tuesday in accordance with Section 263 of the Communications and Multimedia Act.
[Seng: Now, Section 263 of the Act is mentioned in this Star Article, but is this the complete truth?
Apparently, a more important Section of the Act is NOT MENTIONED by The Star in this article. Which Section is that?
Section 3 (3):
(3) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.
So, do you think SKMM has misinterpreted the Act?
You may read the Act in its entirity here - http://www.msc.com.my/cyberlaws/act_communications.asp]
Datuk Joseph Salang Gandum, the Deputy Minister of Energy, Water and Communications, said he was not aware that SKMM had ordered ISPs to block the website.
[Wow! The Minister of Communications can be NOT AWARE of such censorship?
Tai Chi Master? (push shit away before it hits him) ]
“I do not read Malaysia Today. Media practitioners must be sensitive to culture and religion,” he said.
Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek declined comment as it was not under his jurisdiction.
[Wow! Information Minister can also claim that this is outside his jurisdiction?
So, whose jurisdiction is it then? No Minister?
Or shall we put the blame squarely on SKMM?
Certainly, Shabery Cheek exhibited good Tai Chi skills as well.]
SKMM chief operating officer Mohamed Sharil Mohamed Tarmizi, who is overseas, declined to elaborate, saying a press conference would be held to explain why such action was taken.
[Seng: Ahh ... away overseas ....
Nice. That should buy time to explain (or concoct up a "suitable" explanation) ...
Also implies that since he is overseas, it is not him who decided ...
After all, if it was him who decided, then, surely, he could have explained the decision to ban isn't it?
But then, who made the decision to censor it, if it's not him?
Nice Tai Chi moves by the SKMM COO.]
It is understood that this is not the first time SKMM has ordered a website to be blocked.
Malaysia Today remains accessible through its mirror website.
Other Comments: I'm not a lawyer, but it seems clear to me that - to paraphrase Syed Hamid - "that some laws must be broken somewhere by SKMM or a Minister who ordered SKMM to do so".
Why?
Well, Section 3 (3) seems pretty damning.
And then, there is the most immediate question which is why the timing? Why censor at 6 PM on the same day as the PP by-election, before the result is announced?
Why not censor before?
Also, did SKMM acted independently in censoring this?
Or did SKMM acted under orders from someone else?
Who was the person who ordered it since many Tai Chi masters have pushed these problems to "someone else", without defining who that "someone else" should be ?
Does SKMM have the authority to decide what is "libellous, slanderous or defamatory"?
Does SKMM have the authority to override Section 3 (3)?
What do you think?
However, I was even more shocked by the government response here - http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/11945/84/. Original article in italics red, my thoughts in brackets:
(The Star) - The controversial Malaysia Today news portal was blocked by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (SKMM) because its editor ignored many warning letters, Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said.
[Seng: Ok. This is interesting. Who sent the warning letters? SKMM?
What were the nature of the warning letters?
Warn the editor of what?
How many letters were sent altogether?
What were the dates of these letters?]
“When they publish things that are libellous, slanderous or defamatory, it is natural for the SKMM to act against these websites whenever necessary,” he told a a press conference at Parliament lobby yesterday.
[Seng: This is extremely puzzling.
On what basis did SKMM decide that MT contents were "libellous, slanderous or defamatory"?
Does SKMM have the same power, authority and competency as the legal courts to be able to define, decide and determine what is "libellous, slanderous or defamatory"?
Can SKMM make this decision alone and independently, to the extent of censoring Malaysia Today on the same day as the Permatang Pauh by-election day?
Or was SKMM merely following the orders of its superiors?
But then, shouldn't the SKMM - Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission - be guided by its own mandate and law especially the COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA ACT - http://www.msc.com.my/cyberlaws/act_communications.asp? ]
Syed Hamid said SKMM was only exercising its powers.
[Seng: Again, I am puzzled SKMM can exercise its powers on the same day as PP by-election date.
Why not exercise earlier?
What caused SKMM to suddenly feel that MT articles at approximately 6 PM, 26 August, is suddenly "libellous, slanderous or defamatory?]
“We do not intend to curtail people’s freedom or right to express themselves. Everyone is subjected to the law, even websites and blogs,” he added.
On Wednesday, Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamarudin lashed out against the blocking of the online portal, saying it was a breach of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) charter.
Under the MSC Malaysia 10-Point Bill of Guarantees, the Government promised to “ensure no Internet censorship”.
It was reported that all 21 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the country had been ordered by SKMM to block the controversial website.
The notices were sent out on Tuesday in accordance with Section 263 of the Communications and Multimedia Act.
[Seng: Now, Section 263 of the Act is mentioned in this Star Article, but is this the complete truth?
Apparently, a more important Section of the Act is NOT MENTIONED by The Star in this article. Which Section is that?
Section 3 (3):
(3) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.
So, do you think SKMM has misinterpreted the Act?
You may read the Act in its entirity here - http://www.msc.com.my/cyberlaws/act_communications.asp]
Datuk Joseph Salang Gandum, the Deputy Minister of Energy, Water and Communications, said he was not aware that SKMM had ordered ISPs to block the website.
[Wow! The Minister of Communications can be NOT AWARE of such censorship?
Tai Chi Master? (push shit away before it hits him) ]
“I do not read Malaysia Today. Media practitioners must be sensitive to culture and religion,” he said.
Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek declined comment as it was not under his jurisdiction.
[Wow! Information Minister can also claim that this is outside his jurisdiction?
So, whose jurisdiction is it then? No Minister?
Or shall we put the blame squarely on SKMM?
Certainly, Shabery Cheek exhibited good Tai Chi skills as well.]
SKMM chief operating officer Mohamed Sharil Mohamed Tarmizi, who is overseas, declined to elaborate, saying a press conference would be held to explain why such action was taken.
[Seng: Ahh ... away overseas ....
Nice. That should buy time to explain (or concoct up a "suitable" explanation) ...
Also implies that since he is overseas, it is not him who decided ...
After all, if it was him who decided, then, surely, he could have explained the decision to ban isn't it?
But then, who made the decision to censor it, if it's not him?
Nice Tai Chi moves by the SKMM COO.]
It is understood that this is not the first time SKMM has ordered a website to be blocked.
Malaysia Today remains accessible through its mirror website.
Other Comments: I'm not a lawyer, but it seems clear to me that - to paraphrase Syed Hamid - "that some laws must be broken somewhere by SKMM or a Minister who ordered SKMM to do so".
Why?
Well, Section 3 (3) seems pretty damning.
And then, there is the most immediate question which is why the timing? Why censor at 6 PM on the same day as the PP by-election, before the result is announced?
Why not censor before?
Also, did SKMM acted independently in censoring this?
Or did SKMM acted under orders from someone else?
Who was the person who ordered it since many Tai Chi masters have pushed these problems to "someone else", without defining who that "someone else" should be ?
Does SKMM have the authority to decide what is "libellous, slanderous or defamatory"?
Does SKMM have the authority to override Section 3 (3)?
What do you think?
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Is this the same Muhammad Shafee Abdullah from SUHAKAM?
To be honest, I haven't really paid attention to this name until he started calling RPK a "coward", "pariah", "hiding behind his wife's skirt", and the like. The moment he uttered those words, my immediate reaction is "Hey, maybe there is some truth to what RPK said".
And interestingly, as I tried to search for the original articles in MT today, I noticed there is actually a lot of articles written already. Not surprising I suppose given the feud between the two strong personalities. Some links below.
I noticed that in Suhakam's website, one of the Commission Members (Member Number 11) is "11. Dato' Muhammad Shafee Abdullah". http://www.suhakam.org.my/en/about_com_member.asp
My main question is - "Is this the same Muhammad Shafee Abdullah from SUHAKAM?" SUHAKAM is of course the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
Blogger hawkeyejack has blogged on this earlier. The link is here. I won't repeat what he has written, as he has raised highly relevant questions and made good points. You can read what he's written there. http://hawkeyejack.blogspot.com/2008/08/muhammad-shafee-abdullah-champion-of.html
If they are the same people, makes you wonder what kind of Commission Members we have at Suhakam isn't it? One that would threaten to sue all commentators in RPK's articles regardless of what was written, not to mention one that does not hesitate to call RPK names that are certainly not worth repeating here. Certainly sends shivers to my spine ...
Anyway, links for future references.
___________________
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/10883/84/ - Shafee Abdullah: sodomologist extraordinaire ; Wednesday, 06 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/10977/84/ - Money, power and sex: what motivates man ; Thursday, 07 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11183/84/ - The real dalang behind the Anwar sodomy allegation ; Monday, 11 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11393/1/ - You said it, babe! ; Thursday, 14 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11394/1/ - Shafee to also sue commenters on RPK’s news portal ; Friday, 15 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11395/1/ - RPK: Six sources on Shafee; Friday, 15 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11436/84/ - RPK tells Shafee to go to hell; Friday, 15 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11473/1/ - Raja Petra, Shafee feud spills over to drama in court; Saturday, 16 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11513/1/ - Shafee to RPK: Face me in court; Sunday, 17 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11516/1/ - Press release by Shafee Abdullah; Sunday, 17 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11524/1/ - Shafee tells Raja Petra to sue him; Monday, 18 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11525/1/ - Shafee makes police report against Raja Petra; Monday, 18 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11533/1/ - I rest my case, Your Honour; Monday, 18 August 2008
And interestingly, as I tried to search for the original articles in MT today, I noticed there is actually a lot of articles written already. Not surprising I suppose given the feud between the two strong personalities. Some links below.
I noticed that in Suhakam's website, one of the Commission Members (Member Number 11) is "11. Dato' Muhammad Shafee Abdullah". http://www.suhakam.org.my/en/about_com_member.asp
My main question is - "Is this the same Muhammad Shafee Abdullah from SUHAKAM?" SUHAKAM is of course the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
Blogger hawkeyejack has blogged on this earlier. The link is here. I won't repeat what he has written, as he has raised highly relevant questions and made good points. You can read what he's written there. http://hawkeyejack.blogspot.com/2008/08/muhammad-shafee-abdullah-champion-of.html
If they are the same people, makes you wonder what kind of Commission Members we have at Suhakam isn't it? One that would threaten to sue all commentators in RPK's articles regardless of what was written, not to mention one that does not hesitate to call RPK names that are certainly not worth repeating here. Certainly sends shivers to my spine ...
Anyway, links for future references.
___________________
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/10883/84/ - Shafee Abdullah: sodomologist extraordinaire ; Wednesday, 06 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/10977/84/ - Money, power and sex: what motivates man ; Thursday, 07 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11183/84/ - The real dalang behind the Anwar sodomy allegation ; Monday, 11 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11393/1/ - You said it, babe! ; Thursday, 14 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11394/1/ - Shafee to also sue commenters on RPK’s news portal ; Friday, 15 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11395/1/ - RPK: Six sources on Shafee; Friday, 15 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11436/84/ - RPK tells Shafee to go to hell; Friday, 15 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11473/1/ - Raja Petra, Shafee feud spills over to drama in court; Saturday, 16 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11513/1/ - Shafee to RPK: Face me in court; Sunday, 17 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11516/1/ - Press release by Shafee Abdullah; Sunday, 17 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11524/1/ - Shafee tells Raja Petra to sue him; Monday, 18 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11525/1/ - Shafee makes police report against Raja Petra; Monday, 18 August 2008
http://malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11533/1/ - I rest my case, Your Honour; Monday, 18 August 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
