ISA - re-define rather than abolish

Naked aggression describes the Internal Security Act when used against a civilian for any reason other than him being a genuine security threat, but ironically, abolishing it encourages the very aggression it is designed to prevent. In this context it should be re-defined rather than abolished.

A plausible scenario. The opposition forms the government and the ISA is abolished. Al-Qaeda takes issue that the new administration has withdrawn logistical support for its separatist brethren in Thailand and Philippines and takes out Suria KLCC with a nail-bomb. Hundreds die.

The sophisticated bomb is the handiwork of say, a Malaysian born chemist with known links to the group. The academic is apprehended but he was not at the scene of the crime and therefore charges cannot proffer on existing legislation.

Wan Azizah is Prime Minister and Teresa Kok heads the Home Ministry. Not unlike Israel’s Golda Meir in the 70s, the liberalist Malaysian leader is in a dilemma when her Home Minister is without teeth. Without a preventive detention statute on hand, Azizah is unable to detain the mastermind of the atrocity. On the other hand, Meir set aside emotions, by-passed cabinet and judiciary constraints and simply exterminated of the killers of Israel’s Olympian athletes.

India is an excellent example. The republic exists without such a statute and to their own chagrin, every Indian citizen, foreign bombers and bomb-makers inclusive, are accorded due process. The end result - In two decades, 19 bombings killed 600 civilians and most perpetrators, although known, were not convicted.

Point is, Wan Azizah is not Golda Meir. Redefine the ISA and sieve out the radical. Abolish it and he takes over the nation.