Monday, 15 September 2008

telling the future


'Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid said he did not order the arrests of the three people under the Internal Security Act (ISA).
He said the action was taken by the police themselves under Section 73(1) based on their assessment of the current situation as they had “strong and good reason” to believe that conflict could happen and public order could be jeopardised.'  (star online)
 
----------------------------------------
So what is this Section 73 (1) of the ISA that the Home Minister is telling us? 

let me quote section 73 in full below:- 

73. Power to detain suspected persons.

(1) Any police officer may without warrant arrest and
detain pending enquiries any person in respect of whom he
has reason to believe -

(a) that there are grounds which would justify his
detention under section 8; and

(b) that he has acted or is about to act or is likely to
act in any manner prejudicial to the security of
Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance
of essential services therein or to the economic life
thereof.

(2) Any police officer may without warrant arrest and
detain pending enquiries any person, who upon being
questioned by the officer fails to satisfy the officer as to
his identity or as to the purposes for which he is in the place
where he is found and who the officer suspects has acted
or is about to act in any manner prejudicial to the security
of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of
essential services therein or to the economic life thereof.

(3) Any person arrested under this section may be
detained for a period not exceeding sixty days without an
order of detention having been made in respect of him under
section 8:

Provided that -

(a) he shall not be detained for longer than twenty-four
hours except with the authority of a police officer of
or above the rank of Inspector;

(b) he shall not be detained for more than forty-eight
hours except with the authority of a police officer
of or above the rank of Assistant Superintendent;
and

(c) he shall not be detained for more than thirty days
unless a police officer of or above the rank of Deputy
Superintendent has reported the circumstances of
the arrest and detention to the Inspector-General or
to a police officer designated by the Inspector-
General in that behalf, who shall forthwith report
the same to the Minister.

(4) - (5) [Repealed]

(6) The powers conferred upon a police officer by subsections
(1) and (2) may be exercised by any member of the
security forces, any person performing the duties of guard
or watchman in a protected place and by any other person
generally authorized in that behalf by a Chief Police Officer.

(7) Any person detained under the powers conferred by
this section shall be deemed to be in lawful custody, and
may be detained in any prison, or in any police station or
in any other similar place authorized generally or specially
by the Minister.

------------------------------------------------------

Based on this interpretation and exercise of Section 73 (1), the police should be the one explaining the use of the ISA under Section 73 (1), not the Home Minister since he himself deny he was the one behind the detentions.

in the newspapers, the police are shown standing besides the Home Minister as he explains on their behalf. why can't they explain it themselves? the acting IGP is also there in the picture. can he not give all of us the 'real' reasons behind the arrest of teresa kok? or is it that the Home Minister really knows what he is doing and the police are just there to carry out his orders? 

so, are there 'sufficient grounds' to justify taking action? or was it merely based on hearsay? or just because utusan malaysia published the rumour? or acting because khir toyo started the rumour in the first place? the police claims to have sufficient grounds to take action. so what are these? don't hide behind vague excuses.

or is it that she has 'acted or is about to act or is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia'? what act has she done or is likely to do that can be prejudicial to the security of Malaysia?  even the hearsay rumour of her supposedly asking the mosques to tone down their azans surely cannot be constituted as 'prejudicial to the security of malaysia'? wake up. this outdated act was meant for the communists and their threat to undermine the security of the whole nation. it may be use to tackle terrorists today but to tackle a duly elected representative of the parliment as if she was a communist or terrorist?



the police can evoke the ISA based on the person being 'likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia'.  that reminds of the movie by tom cruise called 'minority report'. in the future, people can be arrested for crimes before they actually commit it. friends, looks like the future is already here in malaysia. the police can determine that a certain person is 'likely' to act and therefore they should preempt that likely act first. 


in the movie, there were 3 'clairvoyant' girls who had the ability to 'foresee' what could happen. i wonder who the malaysian police and the Home Minister have who claim to foresee what could happen!!! can they really foresee what the reb is likely to do next? what will he be blogging about? would it be an act that is 'likely to be prejudicial to the security of Malaysia'? oh, the reb would also like to know!! tell me please!!

No comments: