I am not entirely in favour of the ISA (Internal Security Act). Yes, the ISA was useful and effective when the then Malaya was under communist threats, when the emergeny was enforced. The ISA was relevant.
To use the powers under the ISA against a blogger, a member of parliament and a journalist, for what ever reasons in this era of globalisation, is wrong.
The government should charge them in open court under the relevant laws, such as the Sedition or the Defamation laws, let justice prevails.
Not the ISA.
The ISA, as stated by a government leader a couple of years ago, is Malaysia's anti-terrorist law that was enacted long before the Save America Act or the Anti-Terrorism Act of Britain. Since 1948 Malaysia and the then Malaya have been safeguarding her shores and her own internal public order and security needs.
The ISA has become part and parcel of our legal landscape and after September 11 its relevance has become more felt than ever, as far as terrorism is concerned.
Malaysia has been in the firm belief that preventive laws with the specific aims of thwarting acts of terrorism or acts which prejudice security ought to be the rule rather than the exception.
What is an act of terror? Generally, it is accepted that an act of terror implicitly involves and results in the use of force that destroys life and property.
In the case of Raja Petra, or YB Teresa Kok and Sin Chew daily reporter Tan Hoon Cheng, we can rule out acts of terror and threats to internal public order.
There are laws that the government can make use of to charge them in open court. Not the ISA.
Latest: Reporter Tan Hoon Cheng was released at 4 pm today.