ISA:GUARDIAN OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS

By Hard T

Recent political developments in the country culminating in the arrest of DAP MP Teresa Kok, blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin @ RPK and Sin Chew journalist, Tan under the Internal Security Act (ISA) have prompted certain political parties and human rights organisations as well as the Bar Council to once again call for the Act to be repealed, describing it as an oppressive piece of legislation which undermines fundamental human rights, basic democratic principles and the rule of law.

Although I admit that the ISA does deprive a person of some of his rights, I do not think it is really oppressive, going by recent statements by Teresa and Tan soon after their release that they had received good treatment while under detention.

I disagree with the Bar Council's call to repeal the ISA because social order is more important than unlimited individual freedom. Instead of violating human rights, the ISA is the guardian of basic human rights. It is the last bulwark against social disintegration and ensures the safety of the people, a stable economy and adequate food supply.

In my opinion, the ISA should be retained and maintained in its present form. However, it should be used only sparingly and in exceptional cases.

Although the ISA may appear to be unjust because it denies a person the right to defend himself, I feel that there are instances where it might be absolutely necessary to detain certain individuals under the act in order to preserve or maintain national security, racial and religious harmony and economic stability. These, to me, are more important than an individual's decency and dignity.

The need for the ISA was proven as it had ensured the nation's security. ISA would prevent irresponsible people from trying to fan racial sentiment to undermine unity.

Human rights activists have bemoaned this situation for years. They point out that extant laws, such as the Sedition Act, can be used to deal with "national security" offences. They also say the ISA has been used to silence political dissent, and that it's incompatible with the rule of law.

Besides, I think I can say that in Malaysia, ISA detainees are well-treated and given a lot of
privileges, unlike in many other countries. I am sure some of our Members of Parliament who have been detained under the ISA will vouch for this. As far as I know, none of them seems to have lost any of their dignity.

I don't think minds like ours can be changed with the repeal of mere laws. And that's all the ISA is, after all: a "mere" law and not an unalterable part of our brain chemistry, forever affecting the things we do.

The ISA has become a synecdoche for all we fear, and we can't seriously continue to blame the government for everything we fear. That would be so ... childish. It's also become a too-convenient scapegoat for timidity and mental mediocrity. Like, grow up.

There will always be bigots and demagogues out to create discord in this our fair land, but don't let them spoil things for the rest of us. We have shown we can restrain ourselves from running amok when we hear intelligently critical views.

I do not think that the ISA is as bad as what it is made out to be. It is only arbitrary detention, that is people disappearing without any trace or justification like what is happening in some Latin American and African countries, that cannot be condoned.

I am of the view that our country needs such preventive laws like the ISA so as to deal with certain individuals who would resort to any means to undermine the peace and security of this country.

Such people have no respect for the laws of the country and are sometimes skilful in the art of
circumventing them to avoid prosecution. Therefore, the individual's freedom should take a back seat if national security is at stake.

It is not difficult to understand why the Bar Council made such a call. Imagine you are walking on the street and some policemen come up to you suddenly and arrest you and put you in jail without any trial.

This sounds totally unjust as it violates basic human rights.

But wait! If that is the case, why does the ISA exist anyway? One must know the reason first before agreeing with the Bar Council's call. Not long ago, huge demonstrations were held by Indonesians in Jakarta and other cities. As a result, there was chaos in these cities.

Thus, any effort to revitalise the critical Indonesian economy was made more difficult. One may want to ask: what good has the freedom of inciting huge demonstrations done for Indonesia? The lesson we can learn here is that personal rights should not be allowed to threaten social order.

The authority responsible for the country's law and order in particular should be tough with those who want to destroy what Malaysians took decades to build. What is the ISA for if not to stop such people from being mischievous?

Confucius said, the longest journey begins with but one step. Fundamental principles of fair play should be respected.

p/s I receive an email from someone saying (in Malay): Sah berita dari ibu pejabat Parti Keadilan Rakyat. Terkini. Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim berjaya memperoleh 44 kerusi tambahan. 18 kerusi dari Ikea, 14 kerusi dari Court Mammoth, 10 kerusi dari Fella Design dan 2 lagi adalah kerusi roda.