I have left the space of blogosphere for a long time and certainly this weblog of mine for a long long time. Since leaving the space of blogosphere, I have spent a good deal of time in other social networks like Facebook and more recently, getting more and more active on the space of Twitter.
To start of with, I would describe myself as a young idealist who wishes to see change in my country- Malaysia. As I am a member of MCA, more often than not I am perceived as too-pro-BN or too bias (leaning towards BN that is!) although at times, I must confess that I have tried to stay impartial or take a standpoint from a partisan point of view.
Now, through this blog, I hope to share some of views which I believe the space of Twitter certainly doesn’t allow me to, due to the character limit (which I am constantly guilty of going beyond, just like how many Malaysians would drive beyond the speed limits). More so, the space of Twitter limit you from sharing a holistic view of the change you aspire to see in your country, as such changes are often too many, and certainly more than 10 posts of 140 characters.
In terms of Malaysia, I believe that many Malaysians, especially the urbanites, think that the following areas are in dire need of change (in no order of priority):-
(a) Internal Security Act (“ISA”) which allows detention without trial for up to 2 years;
(b) Section 15 of the University and University Colleges Act (“UUCA”) which curtails the rights of the youths to get involved in politics whilst still undergoing (tertiary) education;
(c) Crime rate and the safety of the people;
(d) Corruption; and
(e) Freedom of expression and freedom of PEACEFUL assembly.
(of course the list may go on and on and I hope to be able to deal with it and share my view in times to come)
ISA and detention without trial
Proponents for ISA (like myself) would argue that it is necessary that the Act is to stay for national security reasons. In recent time, especially since the 911 attack in the United States and then the July 7 attack in the London tube stations, there seems to be good reason why the Act should stay- to ensure that national security is not impeached and to fight against terrorism.
In my personal view, I believe that the grounds of the opponents of ISA are two-fold: firstly, they are against the abuse of ISA for political gains which to a large extent, had happened in Malaysia for the past 2 decades or so; and secondly, it infringes basic principle of human rights to fair trial. For one, let me put on record that I am against the abuse of ISA for political gains. As such, an independent panel made up of retired police personnel, armed forces, human rights activists, lawyers and judges should be set up to review each and every single detention under ISA instead of leaving the power solely in the hands of the Home Affairs Minister. More importantly, those who sits on the panel should be politically independent to avoid such detention from being politicized and/ or such detention from remaining as a tool for political gains.
On the second ground, I believe that a balance needs to be struck between national security and human rights. Hence, I believe that the length of detention without trial should be reduced from 2 years to (maybe) 60 or 90 days. This length, I believe, is sufficient for the police (or better still our intelligence equivalent to MI5?) to gather sufficient information on whether one is a threat to national security and if so, to bring him/ her before our criminal justice system. In the event that someone has been wrongfully detained, the law must then provide that the person should be put back into the situation he/ she was in as far as money can do and the Government must also issue press statements to clear his/ her name. This is how I believe the Government will be prevented from abusing the ISA for political gains; and this is where believe the balance between national security and human rights can be struck.
Section 15 of UUCA
As mentioned, this provision of the UUCA is one which curtails the rights of students, especially those in tertiary education, from being actively involved in politics. Whilst I stand to be corrected, proponents for this law argue that this provision was initially legislated, and remained there, to stop students from neglecting their studies (allegedly an effect of too much focus in politics). However, it appears to me that this provision is an oppression on the students’ right to be more involved in political organisations.
In this modern world, particularly with the advancement of technologies and the internet being a useful place for information, this provision is redundant in stopping students from neglecting their studies, if at all. Moreover, involvement in politics will surely not cause any student to neglect their studies (and even if they do, such student will not go far in politics as they are lousy in balancing their wants and needs).
A clear flaw from the argument for Section 15 of UUCA can be derived from the example of our current Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak. As a matter of fact, the Honourable Prime Minister had received his degree in 1974 and went on to become a member of UMNO Youth EXCO in 1976. Are you telling me that he was not in UMNO while he was studying? Are you telling me that being involved in politics had caused him to neglect his studies? I for one was involved in MCA Overseas Club UK (and allow me the space to boast, I was the President for a term!) from the start of my LLB Law degree to the date I was called to the degree of the utter bar at the Honourable Society of Middle Temple. Whilst I have not obtained the best results, I have managed a 2.1 for my degree and a Very Competent for my BVC. So have politics caused me to neglect my studies? Therefore, proponents for Section 15 of UUCA should drop that argument and repeal that provision!
As it is late at night at the time of writing, I hope to share my views on crime, corruption and freedom of expression & peaceful assembly in the near future. In the meantime, happy Christmas and happy new year!
