In the latest Rocky's Bru on Thursday column in The Malay Mail headlined Journalists and insecure people in power, I discussed the two Acts in the news these days - the Internal Security Act and the Securities Commission Act. The ISA is up for amendments and the SCA ought to be, now that we know it's so blatantly open to abuse [pls read The Star writer seeks judicial review over SC notice]
On the proposed ISA amendments, I wrote:
The anti-ISA movement in the country, which is demanding the abolition of the Act, won't be satisfied. But most rational Malaysians will appreciate that there's still need for a law that is able to act as a strong deterrent.A commenter and friend challenged my views after reading the column:
Old Fart: You say 'rational Malaysians ....still need for law...act as strong deterrent'... will u hold on to that opinion if and when you are taken in?Yes, we'll all have to accommodate that thought. But here's another thoughtt: Najib Razak has been PM for 14 months and the story so far is that he, or rather his Home Minister , hasn't come near sending anyone to Kamunting. That is a good sign. In addition to that, the Home Minister is coming out with a set of proposals to amend the ISA. Two good signs. Maybe there is a kid who doesn't like candy after all.
Bru: Within the context of an amended ISA, my answer is yes I'll hold on to the view that we do need preventive laws. Already, and unlike pak samad's time, we can challenge isa detention in court. Saying no, we don't need deterrent acts is an extremely optimistic view, which I wld like to share but don't/can't.
Old Fart: I agree with. But just that its like giving candy to a kid and expecting him not to eat it. If I have no choice but to give the kid the candy, i'll just also accomodate the thought he will eat it.