Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©The Malaysian Insider (Used by permission)
by Hafidz Baharom

AUG 5 — Let me first point out for those who may not have noticed just yet that I’m neither anti-ISA nor pro-ISA entirely.

I’m pro-amendment of the ISA to become strictly an anti-terrorist law with oversight from the opposition, the judiciary and human rights groups.

I don’t support any political entity in this nation that insists on using the ISA as a battle cry.

Similarly, I don’t support the need for illegal gatherings that cause such a ruckus with the involvement of minors and the loss of income for certain quarters.

Though I seriously doubt that the businesses lost a total of RM100 million to RM200 million on that day, I do believe that there was some loss, particularly by stores in two of the malls in Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala Lumpur — Pertama Complex and Sogo.

I do agree with the need to allow expression of public opinion. However, I fully disagree with the notion that such freedoms should be allowed on the streets of Kuala Lumpur.

If anything, the best place to hold such gatherings would be similar to holding the rally for the late DAP political secretary in a stadium in Petaling Jaya.

Subsequently, I would think that whosoever that took part in the protest knowingly did so and therefore they knew what to expect when the police and the Home Ministry announced that strong measures would be taken to deter such a rally.

For anyone to cry foul over the police taking a strong stance against an illegal gathering is therefore irrelevant and ludicrous.

The ISA and real security threats

Let us face facts then.

The Internal Security Act, while draconian, is not without justification in the handling of cases involving terrorism.

However, the Act itself is being abused by the Executive and the police in quelling the voices of those who oppose the government in power, not the nation itself.

This can be seen by the use of the Act in the silencing of political voices which I do not agree with, particularly in the detention of reporters apparently “for their safety”, politicians for “funding a mosque” or even a well-known three-initialled royal-cum-blogger who listens to “little birds” and can prove their innocence if they only turned up in a court of law instead of turning tail.

These are not considered “internal security threats”.

People throwing Molotov cocktails at buildings, the family homes of politicians and even ATMs, however, are security threats.

People who somehow influenced forex trading of the ringgit without the knowledge of the Executive, thus putting the nation at economic risk, are security threats.

People who abuse both physically and emotionally those under detainment, without proof of guilt, are security threats.

People who keep information from the public simply because it shows their negligence in serving the public are a security threat. This includes the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on wasted white elephant projects that have yet to be released to the taxpayers themselves.

People who generate political sensationalism and incite the masses with racial or religious hatred are a security threat.

All these people, I honestly think, include both sides of the political spectrum.

The ISA, UDHR and hypocrisy

To claim that the ISA is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is in fact very true.

Similarly, laws that justify the arrests of those who take part in anal sex otherwise known as carnal intercourse, i.e. Penal Code 377 and the institution of Sharia law, are also against the UDHR.

Laws that discriminate against the showing of public affection are also against the UDHR.

Laws that stop transsexuals from getting their identity cards changed are also against the UDHR.

Also, the UDHR allows the freedom of conversion of religion.

The UDHR also protects the right to inter-religious marriages.

The UDHR also allows the right for employment, regardless of an individual’s sexuality or belief.

Do PAS and other members of the GMI support this as well?

So I would think that if we seriously want to adhere to the UDHR, then religious authorities would have to undo that law as well, correct?

Or are we going to be hypocritical about what we wish to take from the UDHR as well?

For anyone to point out that the ISA is inhumane yet still allow other laws to be in place to discriminate others of differing stances on sexual orientation, gender policy or even religious conversion reeks of hypocrisy.

So please.

Don’t even think of using the UDHR to justify your actions, because you’re being equally hypocritical in not accepting it in its entirety. And I think a lot of Malaysians have been misled by those who insist on this; among them religious-based political parties and their supporters.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed