Prime Ministerial oxymoron?

“Silent majority have spoken – we don’t want demos” screamed The Star’s headline. And who were the silent majority who have finally spoken? Representatives of Damai Malaysia – an umbrella body comprising 395 non-governmental organisations! How convenient indeed. Or were they the cabinet ministers from the ruling coalition parties behind closed doors? Can Nazri care to comment based on his earlier logic?

I have already wised up to party leaders like, for example, MCA President saying that his party is 100% behind the PM. Can anyone really believe that statement when there was no poll carried out in the party on a given matter?

Now there is no more pretence when Nice turned Nasty. He seemed to have warned, “Please don’t make me angry, you won’t like me when I am angry” like what David Banner used to say.

Someone asked if the ISA used on the Hindraf 5 was the beginning or the end. I am more inclined to believe this is the beginning of Operation Lallang 2, just like what Mahathir did almost exactly two decades ago. MM also started with promises, which later he found he could not keep.

But once someone tasted power, chances are he will not give up easily and when desperate, there is always the stick in the useful ISA! No need to prove anything, just throw in some accusations and it is ready to use, like instant noodles.

Just imagine it as a weapon of last resort during a general election. Create intolerable conditions, like being obviously unfair and fan with nasty comments, the opposition and activists will go for it like ants to sugar. For those cases chargeable, a conviction of which disallows the person from contesting, will reduce some good opposition candidates, while those more vocal and high profile can be put away till after the elections. Unfavourable foreign comments will remain as comments as they are not supposed to interfere and our experienced Foreign Minister can easily brushed them aside with his instant stereotyped replies.

Fair-minded people who value justice and equality, transparency and accountability in the country’s administration had voiced out recently, and even took to the streets. Our leaders branded them as trouble-makers without seriously looking at and trying to solve their grievances. While these people risked their freedom and personal safety for the good of the country, there are those who are only concerned with loss of income and even our PM was more concerned about tourists cancelling their hotel bookings!

Excerpts from Malik Imtiaz’s Disquiet provide a legal argument against using the draconian ISA:

Friday, December 14, 2007
HINDRAF 5: ISA Detentions Side-Step Justice System
What need was there to detain the HINDRAF five under the Internal Security Act?The ISA is a draconian law. It has no place in the modern and mature society that Malaysia is. It has been condemned internationally and locally. The manner in which the ISA allows for subjective detention without trial is violative of the fundamental liberties of persons detained in a manner that cannot be justified in any circumstance.

The Government’s position is that the five are threats to national security and public order and that they are a menace to the public for having lied about the Government in accusing it of ethnic cleansing, for having organized illegal assemblies and for having had links with terrorist groups (‘5 Hindraf leaders a threat to national security’, NST, 14.12.2007).

We cannot lose sight of the fact that no matter how heinous the activity complained of may appear, accusations remain mere accusations until and unless they are made out in a court of law. Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.The detentions are therefore clearly pre-emptive, allowing for a side-stepping of a criminal justice system that is aimed at ensuring that no person is denied his constitutionally guaranteed right to liberty save where it is denied through an exercise of judicial scrutiny replete with inbuilt safeguards aimed at ensuring that an innocent person is not mistakenly imprisoned.

In the very public fanfare surrounding the official reaction to HINDRAF, we have been made to understand that the Prime Minister is angry at the suggestion of ethnic cleansing. He is outraged at the lies that he feels HINDRAF has allegedly told of his Government ('Governmnent doing its best for Indians', NST, 02.12.2007; 'PM: They want to destroy the country', Malaysiakini, 13.12.2007). He is also, by virtue of being the Internal Security Minister, the authority responsible for the issuance of detention orders.

Anger is not sound basis for objective decision-making. It is further not a proper legal basis for the issuance of a detention order.

The Prime Minister has publicly declared that the authorities have evidence of the alleged terrorist links HINDRAF is said to have ('Close watch on Hindraf', The Star, 08.12.2007). Minister Nazri has also publicly declared the existence of such links ('Link is with Tamil Tigers and India's Rss, says Nazri', The Star, 08.12.2007). If this is the case, then there is more reason for the five or any number of other persons involved to be appropriately charged and prosecuted.