by hilman idham,
hilmanidham.blogspot.com
Without any doubts, the ISA has become irrelevant and must be abolished. Among other things, below are some of the arguments for the abolishment of the ISA:
The ISA is against the rule of law.
The ISA has outlived its purpose.
¨ THE ISA IS AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW
Rule of Law will only be introduced and implemented as laws which are fair and reasonable, protect and promote human rights, and they must be consistent with the basic principles of democracy. However, the must be a distinction between “rule of law” and “rule by law”. Even though they sound similar, there is a fine line in between.
In the case of the “rule of law”, any law implemented is always fair and reasonable. It conforms to the democratic process and principles, and it protects and promotes fundamental human rights.
“Rule by law”, however, is exactly opposite of what has been mentioned. It implies the practice of bad laws that contravene democratic principles, and they are far from fair and reasonable.
Why the ISA is against the “rule of law”? To put it simply, it violates one of the basic elements of the “rule of law”, that is, “a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty”. And how does the ISA contradict the “rule of law”? Normally, only when a person is charged in court and found guilty by the judge, can any punishment be imposed on him. If he is not given the opportunity to be heard in court, he is deemed not guilty in law, and he is not liable to any punishment. However, an ISA detainee is never given any fair and open court trial. He might be detained simply because the Home Minister suspects that he is likely to be a threat to the internal security.
¨ THE ISA HAS OUTLIVED ITS PURPOSE
The Internal Security Act 1960 was introduced to replace the Emergency Regulations 1948, which were introduced by the British colonial masters in their combat against the Communist activities. The ISA was meant for continuing the operations to destroyed the armed struggle of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). It was in fact wartime legislation which is only meant to be used when the country was at war.
These days, however, the ISA is subject to be abused. Dr Rais Yatim, the former Law Minister of the Prime Minister’s Office, wrote in his thesis for his doctorate to the effect that:
“It is a mockery that whilst the British only resorts to detention without trial during emergency, in Malaysia, such power is being exercised in the daily administration of the country. In the legal justification, our government chooses to use on a long-term basis, this formidable power conferred by the ISA. This, in fact, is solely a strategic policy of decision.”
The ISA is against the rule of law.
The ISA has outlived its purpose.
¨ THE ISA IS AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW
Rule of Law will only be introduced and implemented as laws which are fair and reasonable, protect and promote human rights, and they must be consistent with the basic principles of democracy. However, the must be a distinction between “rule of law” and “rule by law”. Even though they sound similar, there is a fine line in between.
In the case of the “rule of law”, any law implemented is always fair and reasonable. It conforms to the democratic process and principles, and it protects and promotes fundamental human rights.
“Rule by law”, however, is exactly opposite of what has been mentioned. It implies the practice of bad laws that contravene democratic principles, and they are far from fair and reasonable.
Why the ISA is against the “rule of law”? To put it simply, it violates one of the basic elements of the “rule of law”, that is, “a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty”. And how does the ISA contradict the “rule of law”? Normally, only when a person is charged in court and found guilty by the judge, can any punishment be imposed on him. If he is not given the opportunity to be heard in court, he is deemed not guilty in law, and he is not liable to any punishment. However, an ISA detainee is never given any fair and open court trial. He might be detained simply because the Home Minister suspects that he is likely to be a threat to the internal security.
¨ THE ISA HAS OUTLIVED ITS PURPOSE
The Internal Security Act 1960 was introduced to replace the Emergency Regulations 1948, which were introduced by the British colonial masters in their combat against the Communist activities. The ISA was meant for continuing the operations to destroyed the armed struggle of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). It was in fact wartime legislation which is only meant to be used when the country was at war.
These days, however, the ISA is subject to be abused. Dr Rais Yatim, the former Law Minister of the Prime Minister’s Office, wrote in his thesis for his doctorate to the effect that:
“It is a mockery that whilst the British only resorts to detention without trial during emergency, in Malaysia, such power is being exercised in the daily administration of the country. In the legal justification, our government chooses to use on a long-term basis, this formidable power conferred by the ISA. This, in fact, is solely a strategic policy of decision.”
No comments:
Post a Comment