|  • Internal Security Act to stay for now, says Syed Hamid
• Syed Hamid sedia tanding Naib Presiden
Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar speaks his mind on the ISA with Berita Harian's Ziauddin Sharuddin Q: Some have labelled the Internal Security Act as draconian. Many feel it should only be used against subversive elements bent on overthrowing the government by force, and not against politicians, journalists and NGO leaders. A: Historically, the ISA was used against those involved in subversive activities, such as the communists. In the present context, the ISA is used as a preventive law to handle threats to public order and the peace. That is its main objective. The ISA is not about acting after the threat occurs but taking preventive action before something happens. Whether we realise it or not, since independence, the ISA has helped preserve the peace and public order. The act's main element is public order and safety. What is public order and safety? Firstly, if it has to be established that the actions and behaviour of someone can pose a threat to national security and public order, such as by causing conflicts, riots and civil war. This involves hatred, which covers religious, racial and cultural issues. Secondly, actions that can affect the national economy such as by crippling the country's economy and scaring away investors due to uncertainties. Also, syndicated activities such as producing fake identity cards and passports are threats to national security. Action can be taken against those involved to prevent these activities from continuing. Thirdly, the ISA can also be used against those who threaten or disrupt essential services such as Tenaga Nasional Berhad and Radio Televisyen Malaysia services.
Q: Yet, many are linking the ISA with injustice and political interference?
A: The ISA has always been known as a detention law without trial under the jurisdiction of the home minister. However, many forget that the ISA has two important provisions, one of which is found in section 73(1). This section empowers police to take preventive action to detain any party considered a threat to national security and public order. This action allows the police to detain someone for 24 hours, two days and a week within a maximum period of 60 days. If within this period there is no evidence to establish that there is a threat posed by the detainee, police can release him. It is entirely up to the discretion of the police. This also allows the police to conduct intelligence work to ensure the threat does not lead to public disorder. This type of detention is not a criminal offence and the detainee is not accused under the Penal Code or the Sedition Act. Even the detention areas are different for those detained under different acts. Those under remand are detained in a lock-up while ISA detainees have their own cells, complete with a sleeping area. ISA detainees also have the right to apply for habeas corpus to meet their families and seek legal representation. After their release, they will not have any police record. The ISA is strictly used to maintain public order and safety. The police need not refer to the minister to resort to such actions. The police will inform the home minister as the matter will eventually be of public interest. The police do not even need permission from the minister to release detainees.
Q: In the recent arrest of the three individuals, many parties, including those from the Barisan Nasional, questioned whether public order was indeed and truly compromised to justify the use of the ISA?
A: That is a question which should be directed to the police. I do not have information that they have. However, when it comes to security issues, if there are doubts about the police and the job they need to do, then prevention will be made difficult. But if we look at the anti-terrorism laws in Britain, the authorities can detain a person solely on the basis that there is a threat. They raid and break into the homes of suspected Muslim terrorists and detain an imam who they claim incites people in his religious talks.
Q: How do we determine for sure that such a situation can lead to an ISA arrest? What is the definition of an uncontrollable situation and how are such decisions made?
A: If there are doubts, our security forces will not be able to do their jobs because of the endless debates on this every day which will then raise different opinions and views. We tend to forget that all this while, we have been protected by our security forces. We also saw how tensions were growing to the extent that recently the armed forces chief had to give his view. Malaysia has always taken the preventive approach, which in turn has established peace and stability. The police have taken into account all these factors. Yes, it is a controversy now, but that does not negate their (police) priorities on security and safety. I feel all BN component parties must share similar views on this matter. The strength of the BN lies in the fact that we can discuss sensitive issues behind closed doors.
Q: Is the government ignoring the views of those who oppose the ISA?
A: There are two responses to the ISA. Do not think that those who oppose the ISA are the majority. Those who oppose the ISA are very vocal groups and they express their sentiments through letters and SMSes. I have also received many letters and SMSes supporting the use of the ISA. I think those who support the ISA do that not because of race, culture or religion but because they fear there would be violence and clashes in the country. How is it that there is no threat if international parties have classified Malaysia as being politically unstable? There is instability and advice is given not to invest in the country. Isn't that a threat to security? So, police must have had grounds before they acted and used the ISA. Some say the ISA is outdated but this act has developed and its procedures have kept up with current times.
Q: Those who oppose the ISA are of the view that detainees should be given the right to defend themselves in court. For example, those arrested for sedition should be prosecuted under the Sedition Act.
A: I am speaking about safety and security. For example, if there are seditious acts that can affect security and cause open conflicts, then the ISA must be used. Between two evils, it is better to prevent rather than allow riots to happen. To repair the damage in a community after a riot has happened is far more difficult, just like how it was in Kampung Medan (Selangor) and Kampung Rawa (Penang). To build takes a long time but to destroy takes only a second.
Q: The arrest of Sin Chew Daily journalist Tan Hoon Cheng is seen as extreme and the reasons given that she was detained for her own protection was also rejected by many. Your views?
A: I think we should look at this in a separate context. Individual safety is an answer to many questions but we must look at the broader picture. For example, to make an arrest the police must start from somewhere. In her case, police began with the person who wrote the article, the reasons behind it and whether the article had an underlying agenda to affect national security. Even if the police detained someone else, they had to start from Tan. The arrest of the journalist, just like arrests of politicians and lawyers, normally attracts international attention. The question is do we love our country or do we succumb to outside pressure? If the country is in chaos, who is going to take care of it? Outsiders?
Q: Datuk Zaid Ibrahim (former minister in the prime minister's department) resigned after strongly expressing his reservations on the use of the ISA. Doesn't this justify the many calls for the government to stop using the law?
A: We all have our own views on the ISA. I had my own view when I was practising law and before I was appointed as home minister. But when I became part of the same group, the most important thing is to ensure that there is no misuse of power and that national security is made priority over anything else. During Tun Dr Mahathir (Mohamad's) time, he said that if any of the cabinet members did not support a collective decision, then the best thing to do was to resign from the government. I think his (Zaid) decision to resign is wise but many also make the mistake of joining the opposition. Many politicians quit due to their belief or stand on certain matters but yet, they remain faithful party members and are loyal to the government.
Q: Won't the use of the ISA at a time when the government is encouraging freedom and liberal attitudes be met with opposition?
A: Try to see just how many newspapers have been closed down since the ISA was introduced. See how the New Straits Times Press (NSTP) group, which is closely linked to Umno, gave a full page report for Zaid and also wrote an in-depth piece on the ISA arrests complete with comments from everyone. See the blogs and other newspapers. What is being written by The Sun and Sin Chew Daily? I feel there is much press freedom. Don't just take one case and condemn the ISA. Where do you find people thinking about the ISA when writing something? No one does such a thing! The ISA is not restrictive and we should not let it haunt our sense of freedom. The ISA only comes into the picture when security is under threat. You can write freely but it does not mean with that liberty, laws are ignored. Blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, in his interview with BBC, said the government wanted to restrict Internet freedom. I'm saying freedom still exists but it must be exercised in adherence to the law. How can we allow such a level of freedom which can create chaos in the country? Freedom must be exercised with responsibility. It must respect not only our rights but the rights and sensitivities of others as well. The Sedition Act and Printing Presses and Publications Act are said to impinge on freedom of expression. But Malaysia is a country with a variety of newspapers in different languages. Many views are expressed in them which are healthy for a developing country.
Q: After 51 years of independence, do you see the relationship among the races as being problematic?
A: We can see the country as a Malaysian Malaysia and do not differentiate among the races. Racial integration is the nation's main agenda. The problem is that while we talk about a Malaysian Malaysia, we still stress on the interests of our own race. Certain quarters want to view the nation from the perspective of their individual race. In this respect, we have yet to achieve real integration. Integration does not mean assimilation. We cannot assimilate people as we are a multiracial society. Diversity is our strength. |
No comments:
Post a Comment