Racism, not religion, has been the Number One threat to peace and security

Ghost of BG Yeo, ex-Foreign Affairs Minister, haunts Singapore

BG Yeo, ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs, may have been out of politics since May last year. But his ghost still haunts Sinkies. What am I talking about? I am referring to our relationship with the most populous nation in SE Asia, Indonesia.

There were several issues with Indonesia outstanding when BG Yeo was voted out of Parliament. The one big issue that sticks out like a sore thumb that has yet to be resolved is our harbouring of corrupt ex-officials from Indonesia, and their ill-gotten funds placed in Singapore, safe from the arms of the law.

The PAPpies, very embarrassingly for us Sinkies, seem to be gloating on the fact that there is no extradition treaty between Indonesia and us, and hence claims with hypocritical moral authority that we have done nothing wrong in harbouring these criminals and their illicit funds.

What a shameless boast and hypocritical claim to our “clean image”, particularly for our banking and finance sector, the very sector complicit in the corruption!

Here’s a report on the outstanding issue.

RI may press Singapore on asset repatriation, Timor Leste

Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said that among the top agendas to be negotiated was Indonesia’s wish for Singapore to support Indonesia’s anti-corruption drive.

…[snip]…

Indonesia, listed as one of the world’s most corrupt nations, has not been able to persuade Singapore to agree to help it retrieve the billions of dollars of state money allegedly stashed in the city state by Indonesian criminals.

Observers and activists have dubbed Singapore as a safe haven for Indonesian corruption money.

A prime example is graft convict Gayus H. Tambunan, a former tax official who allegedly deposited large amounts of money in Singapore before he was arrested in 2010.

Graft defendant and former Democratic Party treasurer Muhammad Nazaruddin also reportedly keeps his allegedly ill-gotten assets in Singapore.

This issue has been outstanding for years. Here’s an article about the non-extradition I published in 2007 – More on our Leaders’ “We are right, others are wrong” mentality. Scroll down to the sub-header “Extradition of Corrupt Indonesian Businessmen”.

Here’s an article I wrote in May last year. A longer article which also includes BG Yeo’s explanation in Parliament on the delay of the signing of the agreement on the issue of extradition, followed by RI’s side of the story.

Our Bad Foreign Relations with Indonesia

Here is the next post mentioning the extradition treaty, made on 15 July 2007.
Replies by Minister George Yeo to Questions in Parliament

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of the rejection of the Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) between Indonesia and Singapore by the Indonesian Parliamentary Commission for International Affairs and Defence, what are the implications on both the extradition treaty and the DCA.

REPLY

Minister: Mr Speaker Sir, it is true that a number of Indonesian DPR members have rejected the Defence Cooperation Agreement (or DCA) even before the Indonesian Government has officially submitted it to the DPR for ratification. Some claimed that the DCA infringed on Indonesia’s sovereignty. Others denounced the Extradition Treaty (ET) and DCA agreements as an unfair deal for Indonesia. Many strange allegations were made against the DCA and against Singapore during hearings in the DPR.

Aww….the heralded FM George Yeo failed to deliver. You can read his explanation (otherwise also known as excuses) for the failure to have that treaty signed in the link above.

..[snip]..

So far, that’s one side of the story. Let’s see the other side. Here’s a link from the Indonesians, dated 21 May 2010.
RI, S’pore extradition deal unclear after leaders meet

Leaders of Indonesia and Singapore, the two leading economies in Southeast Asia, have focused on increasing economic cooperation and boosting growth, but seemingly sidelined crucial talks about an agreement on extradition when they met recently.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong met this week in Singapore in an informal retreat planned late last year to discuss ways to boost investment and strengthen ties.

Although the plan had been for the agenda to discuss all pressing bilateral issues, an anticipated agreement on extradition sought by Jakarta to bring home corrupt fugitives seeking asylum in Singapore was left out of the talks, Antara news agency reported.

Such an agreement could bring home billions of US dollars lost to graft when Indonesian corruption fugitives fled to Singapore after the 1997 regional financial meltdown.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said Thursday the main focus of the discussion was economic issues, but he could not confirm whether the leaders had touched on the extradition agreement.

In 2007, an agreement on defense was signed by the two governments but later annulled by Indonesian lawmakers who rejected a term that allowed Singapore’s armed forces to conduct exercises on Indonesian soil in return for Indonesia being allowed to force the return of Indonesian criminals in Singapore.

Kemal Azis Stamboel, chairman of House of Representatives’ Commission I overseeing defense and foreign affairs, said the current commission (2009-2014) shared the same position on the agreement as their predecessors.

He said any extradition deal made with Singapore must be reciprocal, where both countries would be allowed to extradite criminal suspects – and that such an agreement should not have to be brokered with an offer to allow a foreign military access to Indonesian territory.

The extradition agreement has become a priority for Jakarta because Singapore has been used as a safe haven for Indonesian corrupt fugitives to escape to with their illegal assets.

..[snip]..

Ah, so now we know why the Extradition Treaty agreement fell through. All along we heard only one side of the story. From Georgie Porgie Yeo. But the Indonesians have a different story altogether.

Some very pertinent points -

1. The corrupted gains held by Singapore is illegal and is not ours. Who the heck is Singapore to harbour these ill-gotten gains, which rightfully belongs to Indonesia? This illegal action of harbouring illegal ill-gotten funds is endorsed by non other than our Foreign Minister, George Yeo.

2. It does seem to appear the it is the Singapore side that is eager to have the extradition treaty stalled, in view of the fact that Spore tied that treaty to a highly implausible clause of allowing our troops access to Indonesian territory.

3. The fact that Spore wanted an exclusion of cases from the 1998 financial crisis as part of the agreement on the extradition treaty, shows that Spore is bent on keeping those ill-gotten funds, which rightfully belongs to Indonesia.

It can be easily deduced that Singapore, and in particular, Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo, has in fact screwed this one big time. Not only we are seen to be greedy and unethical, we are now seen as the pariah in International eyes, that we are the stumbling block to the tense relations with Indonesia.

So what’s with all this talk that Indonesia are out to get us, when it is our Foreign Affairs Ministry, headed by none other than George Yeo, who has been the culprit for the strained relations?

Summary and conclusion -

While Singapore has claimed to be whiter than white, as well as mocking other nations (Indonesia included) for corruption, it can be seen that we are complicit in the very corruption we are accusing others of. The irony is that while Indonesia is trying hard to clean up its image, Singapore is putting on the brakes to it – and benefitting from the illicit funds!

It looks like the unfinished work of former Foreign Affairs Minister, BG Yeo, is still haunting us. The Ghost of BG Yeo’s past is coming back!

CNA Debate: Religious Fundamentalism is a threat to Asia’s future

Channel News Asia kicked off a new lively Debate Series last Tuesday. It was aired from 8 to 9 pm. Here’s the first episode.

RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM IS A THREAT TO ASIA’S FUTURE

Dr Swapan Dasgupta is political analyst and journalist. Mr Shaune Levine is a corporate man. Dr Farish Ahmad Noor and Prof Chandra Muzaffar are academics.

Main Arguments brought up during The Debate proper -

The definition “fundamentalism” was touched on only lightly. There were many smaller issues brought up and discussed, but the main core arguments discussed was:

1. For the proposition, religion has been used as an agent to create threats and disharmony in Asia.

2. Opposition gave two mainline arguments.

a) It is usually an outside agent provocateur that leads to the birth of a minority section to use religion to influence change in the govt.

b) The major religions have always been about change. Buddha rebelled against society during his time. So did Jesus and Muhammad. Religion is hence seen as a change agent, like any other political ideal, rather than to be seen as a threat in itself.

[My input - Yes, why should religion be singled out? Other groups have sought change in governance too. Just look at history and the past revolutions we had.]

It can be noted that all four debaters were very guarded with their words. Although the topic of outside agent provocateur was mentioned and discussed several times, no one among the four dared mentioned by name who that provocateur is. (Don’t we all know it is the US?)

Furthermore, also while the proposition gave instances where religion was used as threat, eg suicide bombing against civilians, again, no mention of any party was made during the debate proper.

Names of parties and nations were only mentioned during the Q & A time from the floor. That’s when the debate really opened up.

Q & A from floor opens up debate -

While the debate proper given by the four speakers appeared very guarded, especially when it comes to naming parties in order to gave specific examples, it was the questioners from the floor who forced these debaters to name the parties to support their cases. That said, the US was still not mentioned! (Why? Afraid to move away from mainline thought?)

Here are some of the specific examples with parties named during the Q&A.

1. Taliban in Afghanistan – The proposition took the cue from the floor when a questioned was posed specifically on Taliban. Proposition claimed that the Taliban uses religion to expand its ideals and that is a threat.

The Opposition too was quick to reply. In fact, IMO, they did one better than the Proposition on this one. The Taliban in fact supports the opposition’s case. It was because of external agent provocateurs (heck, why don’t they dare name the US???) that’s why the locals support the Taliban.

Interestingly, the subject of Afghanistan did see the debaters touch on the Soviet’s attempt to control the region in the last century, yet not a word breathed about America’s continued presence and interference, which is the cause of the mayhem and threat today!

[My own observation - More interestingly, what that "threat" posed by Taliban to Asia is, was never discussed. It was simply assumed that the existence of Taliban itself is a threat to Asia, however warped that idea may be. But in actual fact, if one looks at the situation, Taliban is a very inward looking organisation and has never had any expansionist ideas to start with. Even today, their objective is no different from three decades ago - ie just get rid of the foreign invaders. No more, no less. What (imaginary and non-existent) threat to Asia?]

2. Moro Liberation Army of the Philippines – This one was brought up by the Opposition. This group started off as a secular group. As time went by, because it was seen that secularism could not handle the issues, the Moro Liberation swung to the religious side. Religion in this case is used as an agent, like other ideals, to seek change. Again, this shows that “threat” from religious fundamentalism is over-hyped.

3. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia – Proposition brought this one up. Pol Pot, together with Karl Marx, was compared to the Taliban. The point made by Proposition is that the non-religious ideals of Karl Marx and Pol Pot were not a threat to Asia, as compared to today’s Taliban.

[My own observation - Eh? Didn't Pol Pot kill millions in one of the 20th Century's worst genocide? What genocide did Taliban commit? Hasn't Karl Marx's ideal spread to half the world and that's still very much alive today in three major nations from Eastern hemisphere, plus some factional parties of the Left sitting in govt parliaments in the West? What ideals has Taliban spread that has influenced Asia, let alone the world? I think it is due to lack of time rather than lack of alertness on the part of the Opposition not to have capitalized on that very amateurish mistake from Proposition.]

4. The PLO – This was brought up by Opposition. Like the argument on the Moro Lib Army, the PLO started as a secular group. Again, because secularism was seen ineffective, another group, this time a religious one, came into power. Opposition did not name that latter group. It is Hamas. Religion is once again used an agent for change like any other political group. Not a threat in itself.

[My input - Incidentally Hamas itself had secular beginnings. It was founded in 1980s by none other than Ariel Sharon (ex-Israeli PM) and funded by Israel. The idea was to create a runaway dissident group to detract PLO from its cause - ie liberalizing Palestinians. As time went by, Hamas began to be more independent and finally cut off links from Israel. Today, it is the legally elected govt of Gaza - and Israel regrets giving birth to its renegade son. Once again, Opposition could have finished Proposition off, pointing out that it was an outside agent provocateur (in this case Israel), that led to the beginnings of Hamas, a "religious fundamentalist" group.]

PS – Some may argue that Israel and Gaza should not fall under the topic of Asia. I disagree. Firstly, which continent do these two places fall under? Secondly, politically, Russia and China (and to some extent India) have of late taken very keen interest on the issues pertaining to the Mid East. The Mid East nations do affect Asia. Mid East is relevant to the topic debated.

Some other good points missed (probably due to time constraint) -

There are so many points that the Opposition could have brought up, but due to time constraint, they were not. Again, concentrating on the main argument that it is due to external interference from an agent provocateur, rather than religion itself, that’s the real threat.

Here’s a list of other points to consider.

1. The overflow and spilling of the war from Afghanistan to Pakistan has again fueled politically driven parties in Pakistan to use religion against the US.

2. Still on the topic “spillover”, America’s stealth drone deep in Iran also stoked political repercussion from a very religious based govt in Iran.

3. If one goes further back in time, wasn’t it the US who funded and supported the Shah of Iran that led to the Iranian Revolution in 1979?

4. Osama bin Laden and his forces (now called Al Qaida by US) was trained by the CIA to fend off the Soviets. Again, note the involvement of secular US that gave birth to a group that is considered “fundamentalist”.

5. Likewise, it was America who supplied chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Saddam and his gang then became America’s and Asia’s “threat” that has to be gotten rid of.

My concluding words

The term “Religious Fundamentalism” was not defined clearly. The arguments that followed appear to imply that the term means the use of religion to create disunity, disharmony in society through means of violence.

That said, the Proposition in my opinion had a harder task. That’s because in reality, as discussed, it is shown that it is secularism that’s the trigger point of all the major flash points, and religion only comes in as a result of these agent provocateurs.

In today’s context, religion on its own cannot move the masses. It is a pull factor rather than push. Societies turn to religion BECAUSE they are disillusioned with the corrupted material secular world, nosing its way into the cultures of others. Then when an agent provocateur from that secular society interferes with the the native countries’ societal norms, that’s when religion is the anti-dote that the native society seeks, and the flash point is triggered.

It is no surprise that the Opposition won easily, based on the votes casted by the live spectators. The results were 70%+ who agreed with the Opposition, while the remaining 20%+ agreed with the Proposition.

An interesting point to note is that a poll was taken before the Debate. The poll showed 70%+ agreed that Religious Fundamentalism is a threat to Asia’s future, while 20%+ disagreed. What a changeover when the debate concluded.

Doesn’t that show that we have been fed with propaganda on this “war on terror” and “religious fundamentalism” such that we simply agree with whatever the MSM says?

Only when there’s a deep analysis, there’s a change of opinion.

Singapore coy about its relationship with US on military ties

Aw, come off it! On one hand Sinkie govt wants to “benefit” from the military ties with US. On the other hand, it does not want to anger China and its Muslim neighbours who are suspicious about the US military. Lookie here, the old saying you can’t have your cake and eat it applies in this case.

Photo: AP

Here’s a report showing how Sinkie govt tries so hard to say that US and Sinkie are not so close because it doesn’t want to anger China (and our Muslim neighbours).

Singapore is not a US treaty ally, MFA clarifies
(You have to be an ST Online subscriber to view the full contents in the hyperlink)

THE Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has corrected a Washington Post article which gave the wrong impression of Singapore’s defence ties with the United States.

The Post article, which The Straits Times republished last Friday, was on the Philippines seeking the expansion of US military presence there, in a strategic move to counter a rising China.

The Post said that the Philippines’ move was the latest taken by countries in the Pacific region to embrace Washington amid growing fears of China’s rise as a military power and its assertiveness in staking claims to disputed territories, such as those in the South China Sea.

The Post also quoted an unnamed Philippines official as saying that ‘Australia, Japan, Singapore’ were doing the same as ‘nobody wants to face China or confront China’.

Yesterday, responding to the report, the MFA pointed out that Singapore was unlike the other countries cited by the Philippines official.

‘Singapore, unlike Japan, Australia and the Philippines, is not a US treaty ally,’ an MFA official said.

‘While Singapore has allowed US ships and aircraft usage of some of our military facilities, this is not a reaction to any recent developments. It is a long-standing arrangement dating back to 1990.’

Singapore and the US signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 1990 which allowed the US expanded use of facilities here for its warships, for naval repairs and for air force training.

Yesterday, the MFA official also said that ‘Singapore maintains friendly relations with all the countries in Asia, and their naval ships call regularly at Singapore’.

Last Thursday, while in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was asked about the same issue by CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria, and whether Singapore would host a US naval base.

Replying with a definitive no, Mr Lee said: ‘A naval base would be twice the size of Singapore.’

Technically, MFA is correct. Sinkie is no treaty ally of US. But that doesn’t address the core point – Sinkie allows those big ships with big guns to be docked here. Isn’t that the issue which is going to attract unwanted attention from China and our neighbours?

Here’s the report that MFA is referring to. Note that there really is nothing said about Sinkie being a treaty ally of the US. It is about putting those big ships and guns on our shores. So what’s with the red herring our MFA is putting up? Trying to tell others we are not America’s lapdog, but in the process showing that we are America’s lapdog?

US in talks to increase heavier military presence in the Philippines

WASHINGTON (REUTERS) – The Philippines is in talks with the United States (US) government on expanding its military presence in the south-east Asian country in response to the growing assertiveness of China, the Washington Post reported on Thursday.

In recent months, the US has announced plans to set up a Marine base in northern Australia and station warships in Singapore, moves seen in China as a part of a broader US attempt to encircle it as it grows into a major power.

The newspaper said that negotiations were in the early stages but quoted officials from both governments as saying they were favourably inclined towards a deal.

It said more talks were scheduled for Thursday and Friday in Washington before higher-level meetings in March.

‘We can point to other countries: Australia, Japan, Singapore,’ the newspaper quoted a senior Philippine official as saying.

‘We’re not the only one doing this, and for good reason. We all want to see a peaceful and stable region. Nobody wants to have to face China or confront China.’

A Philippine defence department spokesman, however, told Reuters he was not aware of any plans to deploy US troops or ships in the country, but the two sides were in talks to boost joint exercises that their militaries hold each year.

‘What is on the table is a request for more frequent exercises. The bottom line is frequency. These training and exercises will benefit our troops in terms of new knowledge, learning new techniques to fight terrorism and anti-piracy as well as on how to operate new equipment,’ Peter Paul Galvez said.

The Philippines used to host major US military bases until about 20 years ago.

More recently, its relations with China have been strained by conflicting claims to islands in the South China Sea – an issue which has also tested China’s ties with other countries in the region.

Among the options under consideration are operating Navy ships from the Philippines, deploying troops on a rotational basis and staging more frequent joint exercises, the Post said.

Officials in the Philippines were quoted as saying their priority is to strengthen maritime defences, especially near the South China Sea. They indicated a willingness to host US ships and surveillance aircraft.

A commander in the western Philippine naval forces told Reuters that a greater US presence in the region, especially in the disputed waters of South China, would help boost security.

‘The presence of US Navy in Philippine waters could be an effective deterrent and increase our domain awareness in the disputed areas,’ he said.

So where’s the part that claims Sinkie is treaty ally of US? Huh? All it says that a base would be built in Australia and warships would be stationed here.

But that itself would anger China, no?

Sinkie wants to please both US and China and gets buttkicked by both -

You really can’t serve two masters at a time. Lapdog Sinkie wants to please US by allowing it to station its warships here but hopes not to anger China. Ha ha. Have not our PAPpy leaders been double dealing and have been double buttkicked all along? Here are two past article I posted in this blog pertaining to being double buttkicked.

No dog can serve two masters

MM Lee offers Singapore’s butt to US, PM Lee offers it to China

So like in the past, in this case, the same scenario applies. Singapore wants to please both US and China. It won’t be long before the double buttkick comes along again, would it?

Final Word -

It is either we allow US to station their ships here to please US and anger China, or we disallow those ships to please China and cause a rift between US and ourselves . All the hot air MFA tries to explain that we are not a treaty ally of US rings hollow when those big ships and guns arrive here.

Too bad Sinkie can’t have its cake and eat it. For too long, we have been a lapdog of US supporting their wars to the point we can’t unchain ourselves from them. Now we have problems trying to please China as well.

That’s the problem when you support a warmongering nation to start with.

Anwar Ibrahim – the trial that should never have been

So finally, the verdict’s out. Anwar Ibrahim has been acquitted. Many believe that this case was politically motivated.

That aside, I believe that this case should have never even made it to the courts. The evidence is so flimsy, the judge ruled that it was not enough to convict Anwar.

Anwar Ibrahim acquitted in sodomy trial

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted and discharged on Monday in a politically-charged sodomy trial he has denounced as a government bid to cripple his opposition ahead of upcoming elections.

Judge Mohamad Zabidin Diah issued the eagerly-awaited ruling at the Kuala Lumpur High Court as thousands of Anwar supporters gathered outside to denounce the trial and demand that he be exonerated.

In his brief verdict announcement, the High Court said he could not rely on controversial DNA evidence submitted by the prosecution.

“The court is always reluctant to convict on sexual offences without corroborative evidence. Therefore, the accused is acquitted and discharged,” he said.

Actually, it should be the court should always be reluctant to convict on ANY offence without corroborative evidence.

The fact that the public prosecutor felt it fit that this case warrants a trial is enough to make you believe that it was politically motivated. So why then the acquittal? I believe due to the availability of the New Media, the public now knows much more than the govt of the land would like them to know. You can fool the public only for so long. Hence, it would be better to simply close the case instead of convicting him, when almost everyone knows Anwar has all along been a political target.

Repealing the ISA -

So what does Anwar’s case in Malaysia got to do with the ISA? Nothing much, but I would like to highlight that the ISA does not allow a public scrutiny of evidence, while an open court case does.

Now if the early Leftists of the 60s and latter Leftists of the 80s had been given a fair and open trial, I am sure the courts would have to throw their cases out. Likewise, if the current JI members were to be put on an open trial, their cases would be thrown out too. Just like the Anwar case where there is not enough evidence.

One of the arguments of pro-ISA supporters is that it is because of the lack of evidence they are arrested under the ISA. Otherwise these people would walk out free.

That argument is as stupid as the ISA itself. Isn’t it because there is no evidence or lack of it, we shouldn’t punish the accused in the first place? What’s this innocent until proven guilty stuff?

My Conclusion -

In order to preserve justice, we need to have a system where the accused is allowed to defend himself. The Anwar trial shows that when there is an open trial, the world watches and hence, any allegation against the defendant is up for scrutiny.

Contrast that with the ISA detainees of the 60s, 70s, 80s and even today, where the arrested do not even have the basic right to defend themselves in a fair, impartial manner.

Chia Thye Poh had chance to denounce CPM, but he blew it.

Once again, more sympathy articles for past Leftist leaders on the internet. Latest one here – Chia Thye Poh, the world’s second longest serving prisoner of conscience

On my part, I have been posting articles arguing why we shouldn’t glorify these Leftists. Here are some of my past articles.

ISA Arrests – who did Tan Jing Quee have in mind to link up with, in the North?

Ex-ISA Detainees Issue – Teo Soh Lung’s smoking gun

Exactly what is the (hidden) agenda of these ex-ISA detainees?

Are the Socialist Left truly for S’pore or do they have a sinister agenda?

PAP gloats its “glory” days, Socialist Left gloats its “gory” days

As for Chia Thye Poh, I wrote an article earlier this month, arguing that he did have his chance to state clearly his stance on the Terrorist group, the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), but he failed to denounce it. Here is that article.

Stop godifying Leftist Leaders – they’re highly sectarian and inward looking

Chia Thye Poh had chance to state his stance on CPM and he blew it -

Let’s take a look at what Chia Thye Poh’s stance on CPM, the terrorist group, was (or is). Chia Thye Poh

Arrest and imprisonment
(first para snipped)

The other detainees were released eventually after they each signed a document promising to renounce violence and sever ties with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).[7] However, he refused as he felt that signing such a document would imply that he was affiliated with the CPM and, in his own words: “to renounce violence is to imply you advocated violence before. If I had signed that statement I would not have lived in peace.”

I admire Chia’s principle for not signing the statement that would have set him free. Signing that statement to renounce violence would mean that he partook violence or at least supported it. But… where is his statement from his own mouth that if he had signed that statement, it would mean that he was affiliated to CPM?

Let’s look at the devil in the details again.

1. The statement implies Chia was affiliated to CPM, the terror group.

2. It implies that Chia supports violence.

In Chia’s own words, he refused to sign the statement that would set him free because #2 implied he supported violence.

Why then did he not do the same, say it in his own words, that he refused to sign the statement because that would also imply he was affiliated to CPM?

Of course, there’s no evidence that he was affiliated or had intention to link with CPM. And that’s the reason for the ISA arrest in the first place, no? Otherwise, it would have been a direct charge and conviction.

But doesn’t his omission to state that he refused to sign the statement because it would imply he was affiliated (or intended to affiliate) to CPM make it very suspicious, when he was so convicted in his principles not to sign that same statement because he stated that if he did, it would imply that he supported violence?

So why did he blow his own horn, stating he stood by his principles on #2, but not #1?

My Opinion -

1. I am against all detention without trial, be it ISA or “war on terror”.

2. We shouldn’t glorify those who support terror or refuse to denounce terror groups.

3. I feel that there is an overplay of Leftist glory.

If Leftists are trying to make a comeback, they should be honest and say it so. Then let the people decide if they want a Socialist Left rule in Singapore.

We should stop elevating past Leftists to the status of heroes. After all, the Left in Singapore and Malaysia had a very violent history and their leaders have never once renounced the violent acts of riots in Singapore (or terror attacks in Malaysia).

Most important of all, we had at least one 1960s Left Leader, Tan Jing Quee, who was ready to link up with the North (who else but with the CPM?), and one current Leftist politician (Teo Soh Lung) who openly endorses that idea held by Jing Quee.

To top that up, we have also seen how Chia Thye Poh was ever so willing to quote that the reason why he “did not sign his freedom document” was because it would imply that he had supported violence, yet at the same time, he was totally silent on the fact that same document also expected him to renounce CPM.

On that point (his requirement to denounce CPM), he was totally silent. Why? Was it because like Jing Quee, he harboured linking up “with the North”, ie with the CPM?

Lee Kuan Yew’s haram book – hard luck on Hard Truths

Federal Islamic authorities declared LKY’s book as haram. My guess is that the reason is LKY urged Muslims in Singapore to be “less Islamic”. How can you expect Muslims to do that? Isn’t that tantamount to asking Muslims not to practise Islam as it should but how a non-Muslim wants, which if a Muslim were to take that advice, it would be….. haram on his part?

Jakim declares book on Lee Kuan Yew haram

Federal Islamic authorities have declared haram a book in which Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew urged Muslims in Singapore to be “less strict on Islamic observances.”

Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going, a collection of interviews published in January, was included in a list of 15 books declared haram by the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim).

Jakim’s planning and research division confirmed the decision was made when its committee on the censorship of publications with Islamic elements met in October.

Nothing said about the book being banned. It simply means that the book is haram to Muslims (in Malaysia at least). Going by what LKY said that Muslims should be “less strict on Islamic observances”, the book can be construed as unIslamic. But I am not going to comment on that because this blog is set up to comment on political issues, rather than Islamic jurisprudence. So here’s my take…

Why did Jakim take so long to decide and announce that decision? One reason is that many decisions taken by panels on whether something is haram or not is not done overnight. But for about nine months? Perhaps the timing is political then.

Just like LKY had a political agenda when he made that racist statement, which if it had been made by an ordinary citizen he would have been charged, Jakim probably also has some political agenda. After all, Malaysia’s elections is coming. That could be one point.

Another point that could be read as is that Malaysian authorities are trying to hint to Muslims in Singapore that LKY is anti-Islam. Yeah, as if we don’t know that!

Those are the two political implications I see in Jakim’s decision to conclude that LKY’s Hard Truth is haram after many moons.

So is the book also haram to Singapore Muslims? MUIS is totally silent. From what I have learned about the Science of Islamic Jurisprudence (Usul Figh), ie how Islamic laws are derived, if MUIS is silent and does not contest Jakim’s opinion, it can be taken that the law is binding on Singapore Muslims too.

Of course that is just my opinion.

But whatever it is, this ruling from Malaysia was coming. After all LKY has been an Islamophobe for half a century. Surely our Muslim neighbours won’t sit idly on that.

Finally, of course, if you listen to the advice of an anti-Islamic person on Islam against the teachings of Islam, that has to be haram. No doubt about that.

Socialist Left trying to make a comeback?

I really cannot understand why when the ex-ISA detainees of 1960s and 1980s keep talking about having the ISA abolished, it is always about themselves – and not about the current ISA detainees including Mas Selamat and his fellow JI members. Could it be because it is really not about the ISA per se, but another agenda they have in mind? That’s one thought I believe they have.

Up North in Malaysia, there is a parallel development. The smaller Left Wing parties that popped up in the 1970s are banding together, hoping to make a comeback. These are Malay-based Left wing groups. Yep, not all Left groups in Malaysia are Chinese based. Again, take note that these groups suddenly appear to challenge current incumbents, mainly Malaysia’s opposition group, the PKR. Is Najib’s announcement that he would abolish the ISA the reason for the Left wing’s resurgence up North ?

Left-wing parties hoping to soar

Its newly elected president Dr Rohana Ariffin said that the party, founded in 1955 by Ahmad Boestaman upon his release from ISA, would contest in the Balik Pulau, Selayang and Petaling Jaya Selatan constituencies in the forthcoming general election.

In an interview, she said PRM was against three-cornered fights but hoped to hold discussions with Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and find an amicable solution.

“We are keen to contest in the three seats,” she told The Star, adding that Balik Pulau in Penang was a traditional PRM seat while Selayang was also a former seat with hardcore members and Petaling Jaya was where the party’s headquarters was located.

“We have many supporters in the three constituencies,” she said. “We are only asking for three seats out of 222 in the country.”

Dr Rohana said if an Opposition government were to be elected in the next general election, their participation would be crucial because they would offer alternative views from within.

“Diversity should be promoted and encouraged and many contrasting views make up a good government unlike with Barisan Nasional where Umno’s views dominate,” said the academician.

All well and good but PKR is in no mood to concede three of the best constituencies now held by party veterans just because PRM is asking for it, tradition-rich party or not.

The Selayang constituency is held by PKR treasurer William Leong, who did well in 2008 defeating his opponents in a three-cornered fight, including a PRM candidate Koh Su Yong, who polled about 2% of the votes.

Koh had stood in 2004 under a PKR banner and polled over 17,000 votes, losing nevertheless. His 2008 performance was lacklustre under PRM, a measure of what the right party can do for a candidate.

Although PRM has traditionally contested in Balik Pulau and never won, it believes it has a better chance now.

Currently, it is held by PKR newcomer Yusmadi Yusuf, who is very active in Balik Pulau as well as in Penang and in Parliament.

Petaling Jaya Selatan, on the other hand is held by Hee Loy Sian, who keeps a low profile.

PRM is hallowed in the left-wing history of the country, having been founded by Ahmad Boestaman and brought together all the Malay left in various organisations like KMM, API and other small groups.

The party was a member of the Socialist Front and contested in various municipal councils and in general election in the 1960s but the winning results were mixed.

It had to watch out for the Special Branch on one hand and convince the people to win elections on the other, making for difficult choices.

PRM survived the 1970s under Kassim Ahmad and after him, Datuk Kampu Radjoo, and finally came under the control of Dr Syed Husin Ali in the 1980s.

In 2003, he dissolved PRM and led its members into PKR but a small faction opposed the move and carried on under the PRM banner, which had a cow’s head as the party symbol.

The breakaway faction was recognised by the Registrar of Societies and in the election for PRM office bearers held in Petaling Jaya last week, Dr Rohana, the acting president since 2010, was elected PRM president.

Another small, left-wing party, the Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM), is also having trouble with Pakatan Rakyat, especially DAP, over seat allocation.

In 2008, it contested under the PKR banner in three seats and won one with its president Dr Nasir Hashim in Kota Damansara and Dr D. Jeyakumar in Sungei Siput Parliamentary seat but secretary-general S. Arutchelvam lost in the Semenyih state seat in Selangor.

The tussle with the DAP in 2008 was for the Jalong seat in Perak which the PSM wanted to contest because of years of grassroots work there.

In the end, they contested as an independent after negotiation with the DAP broke down. In the three-cornered fight that followed, PSM lost to DAP’s Hew Yit Fong who, a year later, defected to Barisan Nasional together with two PKR assemblymen, giving away the state.

In retrospect, left-wing parties are making a comeback in a political environment dominated by both race-based and multi-racial parties all pushing the same democratic centralism political ideology.

They have no socialist trappings to speak off and only want to run a better government with the same foreign investment and development strategies.

The left parties are making a comeback in a big way overseas but without the violent themes of the past.

Their ideologies and policies would provide a fresh alternative to the dominant political parties on both sides of the divide here.

Both Barisan Nasional, that is trying to win hearts and minds with its many 1Malaysia reforms, and Pakatan Rakyat – with its “me-rakyatkan” economy initiatives in Selangor – could well use another party with a socialist bend to speak for and champion the people.

The left-wing parties have important things to contribute to the debate on national issues like privatisation of healthcare, food security and even on the government service tax.

Their re-emergence on the political scene should be welcomed and encouraged as these left parties have dedicated leadership who will go the extra mile for the people.

That’s the latest in Malaysia. Back in Singapore, have the Left Wingers got wind that there is a resurgence of Leftist activity in the North? Is this why the ex-ISA detainees have been harping about their past arrests the last few months? Are they not trying to clear their names, so that they will appear white, when the time comes for them to campaign the Leftist cause? Isn’t this the real reason why when they keep talking about the ISA arrests, they never once mentioned the JI detainees?

It must be noted that Teo Soh Lung, one of the detainees in the 1987 arrests still harbours the ideal of a united Singapore-Malaysia socialist front. This can be easily concluded when Soh Lung wrote a memorial for the late Tan Jing Quee, an early Leftist Leader. Soh Lung mentioned that Jing Quee had a vision to have a unified Malaya-Singapore Leftist Front. Problem with that is in the 1950s to 1960s, the only Socialist Party that was viable for a link up in Malaysia was Communist Terrorist Chin Peng’s CPM. I wrote about that here – ISA Arrests – who did Tan Jing Quee have in mind to link up with, in the North?

Leftists trying to make a comeback? -

I strongly believe that the govt should abolish the oppressive ISA. I also feel that if these Leftists want to make a political comeback, they should say it out loud and clear so that the people can decide if they want them or not.

The Leftists believe that they can do better than the PAP, or for that matter, the current opposition. In Malaysia, that is also the case. As readers may have noted, the Socialist Left up North have decided to take on PKR’s territory rather than directly contesting BN areas.

Likewise, I also note that the Leftists in Singapore tend to be rather loopy in their arguments. They talk about Human Rights and oppression of ISA – yet totally ignore the current ISA detainees today. So what else can their agenda be, other than to promote themselves, possibly to make a political comeback?

Teo Soh Lung’s mention of links with the North -

Soh Lung must still be harbouring for a link up with the North today, for her to mention that ideal held by Jing Quee in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, the Terrorist Communist group led by Chin Peng is no more. Instead at the fringes, we have Malay-based Leftist groups.

One image problem the Socialist Left in Singapore has (other than it had a violent past) is that it is “too Chinese”. In fact, far too Chinese such that it even makes the usually Chinese Chauvinistic PAP look good. If the Socialist Left were to make a comeback, it would have to address that. So what better way than to link up with a Malay based Left group in the North? Isn’t this one possible reading of Teo Soh Lung’s highly idealistic idea of a North-South linkup today?

This Chinese based Left in the South linking up with the Malay based Left in the North may be a far cry from Jing Quee’s idea of the more potent linkup with Chin Peng in the 1950s or 1960s. But it certainly would give the Leftists in Singapore a horn to blow, that they aren’t just for the Chinese base.

My Final Words -

The PAP should just lift the ISA and let the Leftists have a free mind to contest next elections under the Socialist banner. That would be a good platform to judge if Singaporeans truly want a Socialist rule or not.

If the PAP does not do that, these Leftists would contest under a party like SDP, the party that takes about anyone under the sun.

To me, if Teo Soh Lung and gang do get into Parliament on the Socialist ticket, I’ll accept. However these Leftists should be more honest about their intention, instead of trying to hypocritically fight for “Human Rights”. Because if these Leftists are truly for Human Rights, they wouldn’t have left the JI detainees unmentioned.

Wassup Tian Chua? Wanna leave Malaysia to be a S’porean?

I don’t like to comment on our neighbour’s internal politics because I don’t like to quarrel with neighbours. I have helluva lot of readers from Malaysia and to some degree Indonesia (probably due to my pro-Palestinian articles), so I don’t wanna raise contentious issues about their internal politics, then quarrel with them. After all, I visit Malaysia regularly too.

However, I feel that I have reached a stage I feel I need to respond to a statement from a politician in the North. This post is hence not an attack against Malaysians but just a post venting off steam on some of the silly things politicians of the North do.

I’ll start off with this article – Singapore ‘faces pressure to repeal ISA’, says Malaysian MP

Malaysian opposition MP Tian Chua believes the Singapore Government is under ‘tremendous pressure’ to follow in Malaysia’s footsteps in repealing the Internal Security Act (ISA), he said at a forum here on Saturday.

He cited two key factors: a less fearful electorate arising from the evolution of the democratic process, and historical links between both countries’ uses of the ISA.

Mr Chua, who was detained for two years from 2001 under Malaysia’s ISA, was speaking at a forum organised by the Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD) political association.

‘The ISA experience through these 40 years in Malaysia and Singapore is a process of the nation overcoming our own fears and phobias,’ said Mr Chua, 47, a Parti Keadilan Rakyat MP.

Hello, MP Tian Chua, if you are so bent on having Singapore repeal our ISA, why don’t you be a Singapore Citizen, stand for elections, get elected into Parliament, then bring it up during Parliament Sessions? Doing it from KL not only does nothing to get Singapore to change, it is also interfering with our internal politics.

Shouldn’t you take care of your own backyard instead of nosing in here?

Qualifying Statement -

I am against the ISA. It should be repealed totally. It should not be replaced with “war on terror” because the latter is just a name change to justify detention without trial. If there are terror suspects, put them on trial. If found guilty, sentence them. If innocent, release them. No detention without trial.

As mentioned, this post is just my letting off steam on some politicians in the North. It is not an attack on Malaysians or their political system.

Just like I think the ruling party in my own country sux, I also think of the same of the ruling party up North. Likewise, just as I think the opposition here sux worse than the ruling party, I also feel that the opposition up North sux worse than the ruling party.

The difference between us is……

Malaysia’s Opposition is a bigger circus than Singapore’s -

Let’s move Tian Chua’s attempted meddling aside. Let’s talk about his coalition party that is so fragile at the moment. But before that, here’s a snapshot of Singapore.

We have a circus clown in Singapore. It is the SDP. The SDP leader, that’s Chee Soon Juan if you don’t know already, is a clown. Why? He gets himself into suits that disqualify him from standing for elections. He does things that he knows he will be sued for, then blames the PAP for suing him to have him disqualified.

But if he really is interested being in Parliament, shouldn’t he take care not to be sued in the first place? What a clown.

Back to Malaysia. So does Malaysia have a clown too? I would say so. Sorry to say this, but Anwar Ibrahim supporters are not going to like it. He is my nominated clown of the North.

Let me explain in the points below.

Anwar’s premature crow he could form Fed Govt never materialised -

When Pakatan secured Penang, Kedah, Selangor and Perak – yes, I am not including Kelantan because that has been secured by PAS a looooong time ago – Anwar confidently stated that he would have enough “defaulters” from BN to form the Federal Govt. So? What happened then?

Not only did that premature boast not happen, Pakatan lost Perak through defaulting Pakatan members! And not only did we see that, we also saw a host of Pakatan members defaulting to the other side like an avalanche. Note that most of the defaulters are from Keadilan (PKR), Anwar’s party.

This to me shows Anwar did not do a good selection. He simply roped up anybody under the sun to form the numbers. Then when the Pakatan did not secure enough seats to dislodge BN, those he selected got cold feet and dumped his party to default to the other side.

Sodomy Part 2 -

Poor Anwar. His selection was so awful he even selected someone who later backstabs him. It doesn’t matter that many Malaysians, or for that matter many around the world, don’t believe Saiful’s pathetic story. You can count me in. I have never believed this sodomy story since Part 1 during Mahathir’s time.

What matters here is that Anwar is going to get locked up and once again, be disqualified for next elections. Say, I told you there’s a clown in the North, just like there’s a clown over here who keeps getting disqualified, no?

It is not that Anwar does not know he has many enemies. He knows it. The more reason he should have been careful with his selection in the first place!

But because he wants to move fast and big, he ropes in about anybody. Again, that sure looks like Chee Soon Juan who roped in gay candidate Wijey and WP reject Tan Jee Say, no? Wasn’t Wijey’s gay orientation made an election issue? Just like the talk that Jee Say was cast out by WP?

Zaid Ibrahim -

Big fish caught by Anwar when Zaid defaulted from BN! Oh oh. Big fish lost when Zaid swam away from Pakatan!

As if that was not enough, Big Fish Zaid had not too many kind words for Anwar when he left Pakatan!

Need I say more about this issue?

Anwar’s own Cronyism -

Anwar claims that BN is corrupted because family members and relatives are involved in high level party politics, all at the same time. Cronyism has been his favourite attack.

So Anwar shows how it should be done. Get your wife and daughter in as well. Then make yourself, your wife and your daughter hold key positions in the party. That’s the Pakatan way. Yes, ditch the UMNO way. That’s bad.

Wan Azizah, wife of Anwar and President of PKR. Pic taken from http://serembantwo.blogspot.com/2008/06/politics-saiful-bukhari-azlan.html

Nurul Izzah, eldest daughter of Anwar and VP of PKR. (Don’t let her sweet girlish looks deceive yer. She was 27 when she flattened heavyweight Shahrizat on her own strengths. And that too, she faced a 3-cornered fight against the incumbent! Yes, eat that Tin Pei Ling, she didn’t have anyone to coattail onto unlike you.) Pic taken from http://melayubaru-melayubaru.blogspot.com/2010/09/3-things-nurul-wished-she-knew.html

Anwar’s flip flop on hudud -

Yes, he supports PAS on the idea of hudud in Kelantan. Oopsie, not really.

Let’s face it. The Pakatan is a loose coalition made of Keadilan, DAP and PAS. Anwar’s own party, the Keadilan, is politically the weakest and most fragile. If Pakatan collapses, Keadilan probably will too. But DAP and PAS will still be around.

It looks like Anwar and Keadilan need Pakatan more than DAP or PAS do. But PAS is about bent on having hudud implemented in Kelantan, come what may. Problem is that DAP doesn’t like that one bit and this hudud stuff is one hot potato that’s gonna split Pakatan right into two halves with DAP on one side and PAS on the other.

Poor Keadilan will be trampled on like grass under two jumbo elephants fighting.

So what does he do? Make it sound like ‘yes’ to PAS but at the same time sound like ‘no’ to DAP? It does look like it, doesn’t it?

Sabah and Sarawak, the forgotten frontier -

While all the circus show is going on in Peninsular Malaysia, those on the island of Borneo seem to be some sort of in another world. Anwar has spent so much effort in the Peninsula, it looks like he has forgotten that Sabahans and Sarawakans are also Malaysians.

What did he do to get in touch and be close to them? What programmes does he have in mind to address the indigenous peoples of Sabah and Sarawak?

How is he going to get their support if he is seen so pre-occupied only in Peninsular Malaysia, while forgetting East Malaysia?

Er, of course now Pakatan tries to appear to be doing something. But that’s a little late considering Elections is nearing, don’t you think so? Pakatan will revamp education in Sabah, Sarawak

KOTA KINABALU: Promises are coming thick and fast from both the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) and the opposition Pakatan Rakyat in an attempt to woo the electorate in Sabah and Sarawak ahead of the 13th general election.

While the BN has opted for tried and tested but threadbare coat of incentives that have failed to deliver the goods in either state after close to 50 years since independence, the opposition coalition is committing to real change in both states.

(Barrie’s comments inserted here – Yep, that’s Tian Chua, the guy who’s nosing into Singapore’s affairs when he should be cleaning up his own backyard at Pakatan.)

According to PKR vice-president Tian Chua, Sabah and Sarawak can look forward to a more liberalised and decentralised education system under a Pakatan-administered federal government.

What? Is this guy serious? He can’t even keep the Pakatan unified and he wants to talk about Pakatan being the Federal Govt?

PAS, the backbone and foundation of Pakatan -

Before last Malaysia’s GE, Anwar was seen as the leader of the opposition and his Keadilan was seen as he agent of unification between DAP and PAS. After the elections, due to many defaults from Keadilan; his unfulfilled proclamation that he could form the Fed Govt; infighting among his party members etc, that image has taken a beating.

In fact, all this while it can be said that it is PAS that is holding Pakatan together. I wrote about that more than a year ago – Singapore’s Opposition should learn from PAS

But how long can this lose “marriage of convenience” alliance last? It would only be a matter of time that PAS will push their own Islamic agenda, which DAP will oppose of course – and only a matter of time Anwar would lose his influence over the two bickering parties of the Pakatan.

However, I do not see that as an end to Opposition politics in Malaysia. In fact, I see that as a strengthening of PAS’s position, with DAP kept intact, while Keadilan’s position will be weakened.

Should PAS go alone? -

Actually, I feel the question is not so much of “should” but “when”. It does look more and more likely that PAS would go alone in future, rather than be bogged down by internal politics Pakatan has brought them. It appears that the only factor that is strongly influencing PAS from breaking away is their Spiritual Leader, Nik Aziz.

But how long can he last, given his age? If he goes, I am quite sure PAS would be under pressure from the younger leaders to leave the coalition and free themselves from being restricted and dictated by what they can or cannot do by Pakatan.

For those who think that PAS can’t hold the Chinese ground, here’s a reminder that PAS beat BN in a Chinese majority area flat. This is a stark reminder how strong the Chinese support has been for PAS in the last GE. Excerpt below is taken from the immediate previous hyperlink above.

What’s more glaring is that even before Nizam’s appointment as MB then, PAS had already garnered strong approval from the ground voters – including the Chinese. Here is a snapshot I took from Malaysiakini, when it was reporting live from Malaysia. The constituency was Bukit Gantang (in Perak).

Note the strong support the Chinese gave to PAS – “The Islamic Party has won Kuala Sepatang, the fishing village which is 92 percent Chinese. PAS has bagged 85 percent of the votes there. This is the area where BN stirred a controversy over a team of go-go girls performing at its campaign dinner.”

If you can recall, BN tried to win Kuala Sepatang voters by throwing a Chinese function and brought in go-go dancing girls. In a way, it was snipe at PAS’s supposed strong stance against half-naked girls dancing and partying. As it turned out, the majority of the 92% Chinese were not impressed and instead, gave PAS the thumbs up and BN the middle finger.

Concluding Words -

As I mentioned, Malaysia’s Opposition politics is a bigger circus than Singapore’s. Malaysia has so many issues and possible variances and possibilities, it makes Singapore look like watching a one-channel TV station.

Tian Chua, if he is so bent on having Singapore dropping the ISA, should consider taking up Singapore citizenship and stand for elections here. Over here, he doesn’t have to think about the complexity of so many states, plus the fed govt. That’s 11 states in Peninsular Malaysia (including KL) and three in Borneo. Yes, that’s three and not two in East Malaysia. Don’t forget that Labuan is a Federal Territory. As a politician, he shouldn’t forget that the residents of Labuan are Malaysians too, you know.

In Singapore Tian Chua also doesn’t have to keep himself in touch with the countless of societies and cultures. In Malaysia, on top of having to be in touch with the major races like the Malays, Chinese, Indians and Eurasians, you also have to be in touch with the Orang Asli, Kadazans, Ibans, Dayaks etc.

Finally, if Tian Chua does come to Singapore, it would sure give our opposition a boost. With his experience, I am sure we don’t need the likes of Chee Soon Juan who keeps getting himself disqualified and then throw a fit at the PAP.

So Tian Chua, how about crossing over the causeway? I don’t believe Pakatan will last long enough – simply because Nik Aziz won’t be around for too long to convince PAS to stay with Pakatan. Unless of course you wish to cross over to DAP or PAS to continue your involvement in Opposition Politics, when the inevitable collapse of Pakatan takes place.

Malaysia abolishes ISA? It’s too early too celebrate

Hold on there, you Human Rights Activists. Don’t celebrate – yet. I will tell you why later.

ISA abolished, host of changes promised

KUALA LUMPUR: The Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960 will be abolished and two new laws will be introduced to safeguard peace and order, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak said.

The prime minister also announced that the government would repeal the Banishment Act 1959 and reviewing other laws to be in line with current needs.

A comprehensive study will be carried out on the Restricted Residence Act 1993 and the Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984 where annual renewals would be done away with, and replaced with issuance of licence until it is revoked.

He also said that three Emergency declarations will also be lifted. Once that is done, ISA-like preventive law Emergency Ordinance will also lapse.

Read carefully now. It says that two new laws will be introduced.

So? What are the two new laws? Nothing mentioned! Instead, if you carry on reading, you will see that there is still detention with trial.

He added that extension of detention can only be done through a court order, except in the law concerning terrorism where the power remained with the minister.

Eh? So what if the ISA is gone? You still can be detained without trial under the above condition. Who’s to say a particular opposition leader or campaigner is not a terror threat?

Wait a minute, under the old ISA, wasn’t it because of terror threats of the Communists that the govt detained them? Helloooo?

This is no change! This is just a change of name but the same content. The “new laws” that’s going to replace the old ISA is still the same old law under a new name! That’s all, folks, You are being fooled. Human Rights Activists are celebrating this event too soon!

And what about this quote below?

In a related development, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said the new legislation to replace the ISA will not take long to draft because no amendments need to be tabled in Parliament.

He said that the government might look at similar legislation in other countries when drawing up two bills.

Folks, the laws of other countries on terror ARE about detention WITHOUT TRIAL. Like the Gitmo detainees. Like the arrests and search without warrants. We have the Patriot Act in US where the govt can just assume you are a terror threat and there’s no defence for you.

Come on. It’s far too early to celebrate. Malaysia is simply moving from the outdated term “ISA” to a modern day term “war on terror”. In the end, it is still the same. It can be used against you and you can be detained without trial.

HR Activists, your celebrations are way too premature. What now?

=========

Related Link:
Anti-ISA campaigners are as one dimensional as pro-ISA supporters