www.kopihangtuah.blogspot.com
The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) gives a government panel the right to imprison terror suspects for two years, with multiple extensions, or restrict their movements for five years. Critics spy another blow to civil liberties, which were already under siege
ERRORISM in the name of religion, race and politics has been widespread everywhere and Malaysia is not excluded. It has been a popular topic for coffee chit chats of late and some (discussions) progressed to fierce debates. Recently a friend who had migrated to the United Kingdom (UK) had an interesting conversation with me regarding the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We had differing opinions of course. How else would it be interesting? I would like to share that here for my followers to ponder:
● ● ● ● ●
FRIEND: Three years ago Najib Razak, Malaysia’s Prime Minister, fulfilled a promise to repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA), a draconian colonial-era law which had long been used to lock up dissenters without trial. In the early hours of April 7th legislators approved a new bill which reinstates some of the old law’s power. The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) gives a government panel the right to imprison terror suspects for two years, with multiple extensions, or restrict their movements for five years. Critics spy another blow to civil liberties, which were already under siege.
ME: The POTA was passed with majority votes in the parliament. Majority rules regardless of foreigners' opinions. On the ground Malays demanded for this. He (Najib) had to follow majority's call even if he disagrees. Or else he will lose elections. The oppositions did not even turn out in the parliament... well many of them were absent.
FRIEND: Why do Malays demand this? Isn't this designed to stifle opposition, especially from Parti Agama Islam Semenanjung (PAS), who are most likely to have supporters who might be construed (without trial or evidence) to be potentially "terrorists"? Are you sure the demand was for a law that can detain people without charge for up to 2 years and restrict movement for 5 years? Have you ever thought what this means? I mean I am sure you assume it won't be you, but all you have to do is to consider whether this law is any good. What happens if it is you - or someone from your family? Would you still be happy / supportive of this law? Imagine if this law was enacted by the oppositions while they were in power? Would you still be happy then? That is the true test. If a law is just and useful, you should not care who is in the Government. I suspect in the hypothetical event that this law is still around and PAS or Democratic Action Party (DAP) is in power, you would not be so happy.
ME: For me it is simple. Majority rules. If majority Members of Parliament supports, then law is enacted. If you do not agree, in the next General Election, do campaign well to throw away the existing ruling Government. Until then, law is law as long as it goes through the parliamentary proceedings. If opposition wins and they too put through the law by way of parliamentary proceedings, I will accept even if I do not agree. The Constitution and the laws created by law makers via the Constitution needs to be respected. Or else all hell breaks lose.
FRIEND: I agree with you on the principle that if a majority puts in a law, then it is de facto a law. Not arguing about this or democracy. Was debating merits of the law. If you are happy to accept whatever law is put in place, as long as it was put in place by majority, then sure, I understand your position, but I don't agree with the law. Members of Parliament are not perfect. Laws are not perfect. Citizens have the right and responsibility to hold their representatives to account via the ballot box and via public discourse (not through violence or slander, etc.) So I agree with your position that the law was legitimately drafted and enacted but I disagree with the actual content. But I also agree that the right way to address this is via voting / public discourse within the context of a constitutional democracy. The problem here of course is the real politics of the fact that if the majority never changes, then even if all minorities vote, the laws will not change. Hence my question why do Malays want this? Why does the majority wants this?
ME: Good that you agree with me so I do not have to debate further. Why do they (Malays) want POTA? Well from the streets, many Malays are fed up of Islam being humiliated by non-Muslims - including PAS. They are fed up with nonsense such as riots that destroy peace in the country. Many wants peace and when they see that oppositions are using propaganda via religion and race sentiments, they got disgusted. Not just the current Government supporters, many of the PAS supporters are also disagreeing with DAP so when people starts using religion as propaganda, they demand that charges are taken. Th demographics of Malaysia has more Islamist than before. Forget about Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) because they lost many supporters. Because PAS and DAP/PKR cannot get along, they some how cannot come to a consensus to attend the parliamentary session to vote against the POTA. So Barisan Nasional (BN) had an easy win. The opposition is not effective here anymore because of their non cohesiveness. Chaotic man.
FRIEND: Not chaotic Sir. Normal. You are too used to one party rule - that is the exception, not the rule! Everywhere else, the political world is splintering. That's the problem with democracy. 1 person 1 vote. So now there is a party for every single opinion.
ME: Well, that is the price of democracy. You either go with it or leave the country like what you did. But if you choose to stay, as long as laws are not broken, you accept as it is. If you do not like the Government, then in the next General Election, choose someone else. If you so happen to be in the minority and the ones you chose did not win, too bad. Why rally outside and cause discomfort, breaching peace and destabilise the country via chaos? So POTA will deal with this. They (the people) have elected their Members of Parliament so those Members of Parliament can raise the matter in the Parliament without being charged under POTA. This (riots and rallies) does not happen in Singapore does it? Why? Because the late Lee Kwan Yew would have fried them until there is no tomorrow.
FRIEND: Indeed. Singapore is arguably worse than Malaysia in terms of civil liberties! The opposition in Malaysia is really quite incompetent, but that doesn't mean that every issue they raise has no merit. It's also unfair to say that everything the Government has done has been bad - that is clearly an unfair assessment. But things could be better! My point regarding democracy is that it is happening everywhere, not just in Malaysia. Australia, UK, the United States of America (USA), France, Germany - everywhere we are seeing the splintering of political voices. The extreme gets more extreme and us poor centre / balanced guys finding it harder and harder to be represented above all the noise from the fringes.
ME: Finally, we are on the same page then.
Law is law as long as it goes through the parliamentary proceedings. If opposition wins and they too put through the law by way of parliamentary proceedings, I will accept even if I do not agree. The Constitution and the laws created by law makers via the Constitution needs to be respected. Or else all hell breaks lose.
* kopihangtuah
| mcmlxxv:viii:xxix |
0 comments:
Post a Comment