{"id":2927,"date":"2012-10-04T10:41:21","date_gmt":"2012-10-04T02:41:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.therocket.com.my\/en\/?p=2927"},"modified":"2012-10-04T10:41:21","modified_gmt":"2012-10-04T02:41:21","slug":"25th-anniversary-of-ops-lalang","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.therocket.com.my\/en\/25th-anniversary-of-ops-lalang\/","title":{"rendered":"25th Anniversary of Ops Lalang"},"content":{"rendered":"

When draconian acts and abusive control of law combined, a disaster for the people is spelled. The Rocket re-looks at the history of the repealed Internal Security Act, and discovers that its far-reaching consequences are still alive today.<\/em><\/p>\n

Remembering the Terror<\/strong>
\n\"\"<\/a>It was October 27, 1987. Malaysia came under a wave of instability. The political boat was, once again, rocking, and irresponsible allegations of the possibility for \u2018another May 13\u2019 to happen resonated in the public sphere.<\/p>\n

Overnight, 107 people were detained under the Internal Security Act, on the basis of maintaining public security. The notorious Operasi Lalang abused the ISA on the vague excuse of \u201cpublic safety\u201d.<\/p>\n

The government, under Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, went on a spree of \u2018weeding\u2019 operations across the country, throwing into custody a reckless number of persons comprising mostly opposition politicians and civil society leaders.<\/p>\n

For the government of the day, it was deemed a necessary prevention to maintain security. For the people, it was a confusing mockery towards democracy.<\/p>\n

That was 25 years ago. As we mark the 25th anniversary of this historical disgrace in human rights, we continue to fight against political oppression and seek freedom for all Malaysians.<\/p>\n

Malicious Show of Power<\/strong>
\nThe Internal Security Act 1960 is a preventive detention law in force in Malaysia. It was birthed during Malaya\u2019s tougher days of fighting the heightened communist insurgency. ISA was perceived to be relevant at the time to curb \u2018terrorist activities\u2019 and \u2018subversive elements\u2019 detrimental to the nation\u2019s stability.<\/p>\n

For 52 years, it was used by the government of the day against not only politicians, but also against environmentalists, trade unionists, social activists and religious extremists, among others.<\/p>\n

Tunku Abdul Rahman once defended the act\u2019s necessity, promising that it will only be used for those threatening public order, never to be used against regular civilians or political opponents. The then Home Minister Tun Dr Ismail dismissed accusations of ISA as being \u2018undemocratic\u2019, justifying that its usage within the country\u2019s context was, indeed, to ensure the ongoing process of democracy.<\/p>\n

It was criticized then as it is now, but beyond the Emergency, the place of ISA in a maturing Malaysian society has started to become more and more questionable \u2013 especially when it is abused to serve ulterior needs.<\/p>\n

Famous ISA detainees<\/strong>
\nIn the October 1987 Ops Lalang, Lim Guan Eng was detained under the ISA for 18 months. Other detainees in this fell swoop included DAP\u2019s Karpal Singh, PAS\u2019 Khalid Samar, Aliran\u2019s Chandra Muzaffar, Independent MP Ibrahim Ali, and Suaram\u2019s Kua Kia Soong.<\/p>\n

Dr Syed Husin Ali, a sociologist in the University of Malaya, was detained for almost six years (1974-1980) \u201cfor being involved willingly and knowingly in an attempt to overthrow the government by force and for cooperating with the communists.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 1991, Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, brother of the then Chief Minister of Sabah, was detained for two years \u201cfor trying to champion the secession of Sabah from the Federation of Malaysia\u201d.<\/p>\n

More recently, two Hindraf members and lawyers, V Ganabatirau, and R Kenghadharan were detained for two and a half years, together with DAP State Assemblyman M. Manoharan, who was elected while in detention.<\/p>\n

Double ISA detainees include PAS politician Mohamad Sabu, DAP Parliamentary Leader Lim Kit Siang and PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim.<\/p>\n

Old wine in a new bottle \u2013 ISA rebranding<\/strong>
\n\"\"<\/a>Carrying the burden of its notorious past, the hesitant Najib Razak found himself pressured between the cries of reform, and the grunts to hold on to laws and institutions that ensure the continuity of power.<\/p>\n

On the eve of Malaysia Day last year, anticipation greeted Najib\u2019s purported \u2018big\u2019 speech. At the end of the night, Malaysians were offered a wave of promises by Najib\u2019s administration to bring forth changes the country\u2019s way of being managed.<\/p>\n

This included the announcement to repeal the Banishment Act, the Emergency Ordinance as well as lifting three Emergency Proclamation in the country, and the decision to repeal the ISA.<\/p>\n

But this didn\u2019t spell the removal of the ISA and its essence altogether. After seven months, the draconian ISA was \u2018replaced\u2019 by a new, equally repressive law. In April 2012, a new Bill was tabled, taking the name of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, or SOSMA.<\/p>\n

SOSMA is painted to have a much gentler nature, as compared to its old cousin, the ISA. The motive of its initiation remains similar: \u201cto address security issues.\u201d<\/p>\n

But when NGOs, civil society organizations, activists, and legal experts took a closer look at SOSMA, they realized that while the new law marked some improvements in some areas, it was actually more repressive in others.<\/p>\n

Once again, it seems that the Malaysian government is demonstrating yet another play of \u2018bait and switch\u2019 with human rights.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s wrong with SOSMA?<\/strong>
\nThe bill has also been criticized as tightening restrictions or banning outright activities already under constraint, adding limits to previously unrestricted activities, and broadening police apprehension and surveillance powers in merely \u2018rebranded\u2019 ways.<\/p>\n

The Bar Council has criticized SOSMA, saying that \u2018security offences\u2019 under the act are defined so widely as to be ambiguous.<\/p>\n

Some of these offences include: actions to cause a substantial number of citizens to fear, organised violence against persons or property; to excite disaffection against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong; or which is prejudicial to public order or the security.<\/p>\n

This wide ambit allows an almost limitless number of people to be detained for flimsy reasons under vague clauses.<\/p>\n

The Bar Council recommended that the Act should use the definition found in the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 1999. It limits the definition of terrorist acts to those \u201cintended to cause death or serious bodily injury\u201d to civilians in order to intimidate a population or compel a government to do or abstain from certain action.<\/p>\n

Another concern raised on SOSMA is that a suspect who has been acquitted may continue to be detained indefinitely while the prosecution exhausts all avenues of appeal.<\/p>\n

\u201cNow, all that is needed to be done is for the public prosecutor to (apply) to the court for the individual (to) be rearrested…what is the difference from the ISA?\u201d questioned Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.<\/p>\n

Under SOSMA, initial police detention is cut to a maximum of 28 days, after which the attorney-general must decide whether to prosecute and on what charges. This is an improvement from the ISA.<\/p>\n

On the down side, judicial oversight is notably absent during the first 24 hours of police custody and such absence can be extended to the entire 28-day investigatory period.<\/p>\n

Detainees who are released can be attached with an \u201celectronic monitoring device\u201d on their person.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s More\u2026<\/strong>
\nBesides the new SOSMA, a barrage of three other legal amendments were pushed through to cement the government\u2019s powers, some say the result is even worse than before!<\/p>\n

Simultaneous amendments were tabled to the Penal Code, Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code.<\/p>\n

The new section 124B of the Penal Code is of particular concern as it introduces a new offence known as \u201cActivity detrimental to parliamentary democracy\u201d.<\/p>\n

What exactly is that? Nobody know! The definition is so sketchy and yet it carries a high maximum sentence of 15 years jail.<\/p>\n

It is disturbing to note the definition of \u201csensitive information\u201d under the new Section 130A (i) is broad enough to encompass any document, information, or material, whether or not it is classified as \u201cTop Secret\u201d, \u201cSecret\u201d, \u201cConfidential\u201d, or \u201cRestricted\u201d by the state.
\nPublic confidence in the government is shaken when oppressive laws are repealed with much fanfare, only to be replaced with equally -if not more abhorrent legislation that offends the spirit of legal reform.<\/p>\n

Najib\u2019s quadruple barrage of ticking time bombs is a rude awakening to voters that the BN government has no intention of real change. The only solution to end the desecration of peace-loving Malaysian\u2019s fundamental liberties is to change the government. -The Rocket<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When draconian acts and abusive control of law combined, a disaster for the people is spelled. The Rocket re-looks at the history of the repealed Internal Security Act, and discovers that its far-reaching consequences are still alive today. Remembering the Terror It was October 27, 1987. Malaysia came under a wave of instability. The political […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2994,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cover-story"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.therocket.com.my\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.therocket.com.my\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.therocket.com.my\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.therocket.com.my\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.therocket.com.my\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2927"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.therocket.com.my\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2927\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.therocket.com.my\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2994"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.therocket.com.my\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.therocket.com.my\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.therocket.com.my\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}