Simply put, the ISA SHOULD REMAIN AS IT IS, a perpetual feature of Malaysiana till kingdom come and not one iota, read ONE iota, should be subject to scrutiny. In fact, where possible, fresh provisions, should be introduced to further tighten the Act lest maudlin and asinine attempts to challenge a detention for publicty's sake and to milk the udder of public compassion become the flavour of day.
I have written previously that the ISA is the baby conceived under Article 149 of the Federal Constitution which specifically and pointedly suspends all basic human rights as enshrined under the relevant Articles of the Constitution :
Article 149(1) declares unequivocally that “any provision of that law designed to stop or prevent that action is valid notwithstanding it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of Articles 5,9 10 or 13 …of the Federal Constitution,
Further, the provisions of the ISA are in no way inimical to that as enshrined in Article 29 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights ( note the highlighted parts) :
Article 29 UDHR
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Observe the focus on public order in the above, a fact also enshrined in Article 149 of our Federal Constitution:
(1) If an act of parliament recites that action has been taken or threatened by any substantial bodyof persons, whether inside or outside the Federation -
(a) to cause, or to cause a substantial number of citizens to fear, organised violence
against persons or property; or
(b) to excite disaffection against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any Government in the
(c) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or other classes of the population likely to cause violence; or
(d) to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of anything by law
(e) which is prejudicial to the maintenance or the functioning of any supply or service to
the public or any class of the public in the Federation or any part thereof; or
(f) which is prejudicial to public order in, or the security of, the Federation or any part
any provision of that law designed to stop or prevent that action is valid notwithstanding that it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of Article 5, 9, 10 or 13, or would apart from this Article be outside the legislative power of Parliament; and Article 79 shall not apply to a Bill for such an Act or any amendment to such a Bill.
and reaffirmed in the preamble to the ISA itself:
"And Whereas action has been taken and threatened by a substantial body of persons which is prejudicial to the security of Malaya"
It is thus evidently clear that the ISA originating from Aricle 149 is designed primarily to maintain public order in a mixing pot of different cultures, religions and weltanschungs. And in no way is such an act inimical to the provisions of Article 29(b) of the UDHR.
The New Vogue Proponents
2. A new argument being introduced into the public debate regarding the continued viability of the ISA involves harping on the phrase "a substantial body of persons" in order to disingeniously suggest to the naive and the gullible that the ISA is implicitly a time constrained piece of legislation designed only to contain the Communist Insurgency that officially ended in 1989. Such a preposterous mangling of the phrase is laughable considering the fact that:
a. insurrections by nature are not "one-man army" shows of bravado but rather involve groups of people.
b. pursuant to (a), insurrections are not spontaneous outbreaks of public acne that scar the face of local polity but are rather the infant gestated within wombs of conspiracy nourished via the umblical cord of careful planning, the placenta of finance and the nutrients of organisation and subterfuge.
Now, readers, don't the things mentioned in (b) fall under " actions taken and threatened.......".
Only a naive immature kid or an adult in dire need of psychiatric treatment and recuperation in a mental asylum would argue otherwise.
Consequently, the question that arises is why the line of argument has been subtly sugarcoated and packaged in this attractive wrapping. Simple :
i) to lull the government into a false sense of security that no body of persons are currently plotting an insurrection ala Guy Fawkes when the reverse is the case.
ii) to establish in the public minds that with the demise of the Communist Insurgency, Mr ISA has overstayed his welcome in the laps of Mrs Malaysia and a divorce is the best option for the once lovey-dovey couple.
Sadly, purveyors of such cheapskate chick-lit (ii) are deliberately oblivious of the fact, that the terrorism is an ever present sword of Damocles suspended over SEA. More importantly in Malaysia, a substantial body of persons are capable of upsetting the apple cart of public order as the shenanigans of Hindraf and Kuala Kangsar attest. And with the economic hurricane blowing the rooftops off job security, income stability etc, rest assured that more vagrants will be susceptible to instigation by "democratic" louts intent on appropriating power for personal gain.
In fact, the democratic credentials and constitutional probity of these louts are highly questionable as they are wont to bend the Constitution to serve their base desires as the articles penned by so-called constitutional experts clearly attest. Gullible Gullivers awed by the hollow Brobdignag arguments peddled and foisted upon them by dissolute Yahoos should come to their senses and realise that the road to national perdition is paved by a thicket of morning glory and fringed by the rose bush, peonies and shy cow slips and that charlatans and medicine men will say anything to sell their poisonous potions. It is best that these traitors be abandoned to the clutches of their lunacy and consigned to the junkyard of opprobrium.
Therefore , SAY NO TO ISA REVIEW.
3. A challenge ( directed at opponents of ISA)
Given that the provisions of Article 149 is inimical to Articles 1,2,3,7,8 and 15 of the UDHR and all the provions to human rights as enshrined in the Human Rights, 1999, my challenge is:
1. How come none of you, self styled, human rights wakils and activists ever argue for the repeal of Article 149. A tad too strange to focus on the ISA alone, wont you say?.
Here are my reasons as to why:
a. The repeal of the ISA (1960) from the statute books will facilitate your takeover of federal authority via violent means in the resulting vacuum (strikes, riots, street demonstrations, terrorism etc)
b. Once assuming power, a new and comprehensively repressive ISA will be enacted via the provisions of Article 149 for you to hold onto power for perpetuity. Right?
That is why, you are leery of calling for Article 149's repeal, you wouldnt want a Jacobin backlash to the Revolution, would you? What a bunch of wannabe big-time Charlies, trying to puff their puny selves to fill the girth of their power suits!!! poor sods..........
Revert: Keep the ISA . What is lacking is stringent enforcement. Throw them velvet gloves off, grab them knuckle dusters, pull on them jackboots, hoist those muskets and get moving! for trouble is brewing in my Silver State.....
Buffalo: Aye master...when the rabble do not respect court decisions ( after agreeing to abide by them), that's a sure sign that the clouds of tumult are gathering yonder the dark horizon, I can scent the heady musk of water in the air....ah..a wallow in the making on bone dry earth..master?
Revert: yeah...and a huge wallow it will be if we tarry........
1.The Malaysian Constitution (pages 119-120)
2. Internal Security Act (1960)at: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-143
On Human Rights
3. Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 which stipulates its adoption of the UDHR:
“for the purpose of this Act, regard shall be had to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution.” The HR 1999 Act defines human rights as referring to fundamental liberties as enshrined in Part II of the Malaysian Federal Constitution. "
4.Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Cases that establish certain HR principles include
Those that expound an expansive view of personal life and liberty :
1. Tan Teck Seng (1996) 2 CLJ 771,
2. Hong Leong Equipment v Liew Fook Chuan and another appeal (1996) 1 MLJ 481)
3. Ramachandran v The Industrial court of Malaysia (1997) 1 MLJ 145
Those that expound a restrictive definition of personal life and liberty:
1.Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v Sugumar Balakrishnan & Another Appeal (2002) 4 CLJ 105
2.Government of Malaysia & others v Loh Wai Kong ( 1979) 2 MLJ 33,