Most Malaysians would agree with me if I say our ministers are least impressive and logical opposed to the ministers of a neighboring country that is known as lion city. And if at all we are impressed, it’s only for their ability in flip-flopping. Topping the list of flip-floppers is our home minister Syed Hamid Albar.
However I find we have had one exceptional “man of his word” minister who had just resigned his position as the De Facto Law Minister. I'm referring to Dato Zaid Ibrahim.
It’s pretty interesting to compare the two ministers named "logical" Zaid and "Illogical" Syed of their comments over ISA here.
“Logical” Zaid (Ibrahim) impressed many with his comments:-
“This government should be a government of law based on principles and rules. If we use the ISA this way, we are showing that we are reverting to the old days”
“If Raja Petra or Teresa Kok had done something very wrong, then use the laws like Sedition Act or the Defamation Act or the Penal Code.”
Pointing out that many people, including senior politician bloggers, had written articles which could be deemed as seditious yet they did not face any consequences.
“The ISA is open to abuse. If we cannot be fair in implementing it, then we should confine its use to terrorists.”
“If we have to use the ISA to detain people, it shows that we have no confidence in our enforcement agencies.”
“People who say the ISA is still relevant do not know what it is like to be detained without proof or trial. They have not gone through it personally.”
“We don’t use the ISA on everyone. It is very selective and subjective.”
"Of course, we have to consider racial sensitivities but the government should find other proactive solutions and deal with them openly."
“Illogical” Syed (Hamid) disgusted many with his comments:-
“Tan Hoon Cheng was detained under section 73(1) of the Act in order to ensure her safety.” (Question: Since when ISA has been used to protect the detainee? Oh ya! I remember; was Saiful protected under ISA too?)
“The police intelligence indicated that there were threats to her life after she reported on Bukit Bendera division Umno Chairman Datuk Ahmad Ismail’s alleged racist remarks. (Question: So what action police have taken against those threatening her life?)
“Ahmad is a party member. We have taken action against him. He has been punished and we have suspended him for three years. But at the same time there is a report against him and we are investigating the report” – (Question: You are standing at the rostrum in your capacity as home minister and not Umno officer. Why then until today no action against Ahamd? If the Umno president and deputy president who are PM and DPM respectively, could be satisfied with the evidences produced that found Ahmad guilty, wouldn't you agree with me that the same could be used as evidence to apprehend Ahmad for his wrongs? )
“We have no intention of holding a reporter as after all she was just taking notes of the comments made by a certain party that led to a public debate” (Question: since you say so why the need to arrest her under ISA? )
“Teresa Kok was arrested due to her comments on mosque and Azan recently. Her comments have created public disorder and problems.” (Question: Is it? Where is the evidence? I heard the de facto law minister (I perceive he knows law better than you do) saying, “it’s strange you arrest people under ISA and than investigate later)
“The police need not refer to me. It’s their discretion and their assessment of what happened. There has been no malice on their part” (Question: Then why did you say that you were only doing your job referring to the arrests?)
Now who do you think better represents the people of
source: malaysiakini/NST/the Star