PR Suit against EC

PRESS STATEMENT - 17 July 2013 

Pakatan Rakyat suit is against the 7 EC officials is constitional

The Deputy Chairman of the EC has responded to the suit by Pakatan Rakyat to say that the suit is unconstitutional citing Article 118 of the Federal Constitution.

I would advise him to review his views with his legal advisors. 

The Deputy Chairman is failing to appreciate that the suit filed against the 7 members of the EC is alleging that by willfully and knowingly causing the failure of the indelible ink, they acted fraudulently, breached the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and also committed the tort of misfeasance in public office.  If the Court after hearing the evidence agrees with the Plaintiffs, the main reliefs sought are declarations to such effect and also payment of general damages.  There is nothing unconstitutional about such a suit for such reliefs.  Actions against public bodies based on such causes of action are well established all over the world in similar common law jurisdictions.

In the event that the Court finds that the EC officials did act fraudulently, in breach of constitutional rights and committed misfeasance in public office, then Pakatan Rakyat is also seeking consequential reliefs that the election in all 222 parliamentary seats is declared void and that the same errant officials are removed from their positions so that a fresh election can be conducted by new and credible officials.

Again, I see nothing unconstitutional in seeking such consequential reliefs. 

There are decided cases in apex courts all over the Commonwealth which have intervened in cases of election misconduct  by election officials other than purely through election petitions. I will just cite one here - Union Bank of India v Association for Democratic Reform [2005] 5 SCC 294 where the Supreme Court of India in a constitutional challenge issued directions to the Election Commission.  The case was not filed as a election petition.  India has an identical provision to Article 118 of our Federal Constitution which provides that a challenge to an election can only be done via an election petition.

The Deputy Chairman of the EC seems unable to appreciate and understand the universal and fundamental principle in common law, best expressed in Latin “Ubi jus, ibi remedium” which means “Where there is a right, there is a remedy”  which has been accepted in the Courts of England, Canada, Australia and India (in other words, the mature, senior Commonwealth) to apply in constitutional litigation.  Thus, any constitutional right if violated, must have a remedy or redress, more so when the right involves the right to a free and fair election. Accordingly, Pakatan’s civil suit seeks constitutional remedies for breaches of rights guaranteed under the constitution.  One need not and in fact does not pursue them by way of an election petition in an election court.

Pakatan Rakyat is aware that the independence of the Malaysian courts is a matter of controversy particularly when high profile political cases are involved.  However Pakatan Rakyat calls upon the members of the judiciary to play their role as an independent institution and ensure that rights provided for under the Federal Constitution are upheld.

Sivarasa Rasiah
Member of Parliament for Subang
Member of Majlis Pimpinan Pusat and Political Bureau,  Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

Keadilan tells police to stop reference to use of SOSMA during election campaign

The statement by Bukit Aman Legal and Prosecution Division Principal Assistant Director Dato Razali Basri reported in the STAR yesterday that the police will use the Security Offences (Special Measures ) Act 2012 (SOSMA) during the campaign period to ensure that the 13th general election is not affected by incidents or security threats is an entirely unacceptable position.
The statement by Datuk Razali as reported also made reference to using the section 124B of the Penal Code being the offence of activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy ( in the category of so-called security offences ).  This sort of statement confirms the fears that were expressed by MP's during the debate on SOSMA in Parliament in late 2012 that the powers under SOSMA relating to so-called offence of activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy would be easily abused.
Dato Razali's statement further demonstrates the lack of understanding in the senior ranks of the police that the Election Commission is the custodian of the election process and the primary law applicable during campaign is the Election Offences Act. 
Threats to use national security laws like SOSMA in the context of the campaign period will only undermine the integrity of the electoral process.  The existing laws dealing with ordinary criminal offences and public order are adequate to deal with any incidents that may arise in relation to campaign workers etc. 
The reference to use of SOSMA during the election process is totally unwarranted.

Keadilan calls upon the police to stop making references to SOSMA in relation to the election process. 

Sivarasa Rasiah
Ahli Majlis Tertinggi PKR Pusat

Use Police Resources Responsibly

PRESS STATEMENT BY SIVARASA RASIAH

STOP HARASSING MP’s ;  USE POLICE RESOURCES RESPONSIBLY

I was summoned  by the Subang Jaya Police to be questioned today with regard to my involvement in raising the issue of the death in custody of Chang Chin Te  on or around 15 January in the USJ 8 police station lockup. Chang is the son of the Ketua Kampung for the Subang New Village Mr Chang Chan Man. Subang New Village is within Subang Parliament consitutency – in fact the constituency is named after the village.

The background to the case is as follows. Chang was arrested on or about January 10. He was reported dead in the lockup to the family four days later. His widow Lim Wei Ni reported seeing bruises on his face and body in the mortuary and when she took photographs was ordered by police in the mortuary and hospital staff to delete the photographs. The family was understandably suspicious about the circumstances of the death. 

Myself and YB Gobind Singh advised that a second-post mortem would be helpful and we assisted the family to present a demand to Bukit Aman to allow the second post mortem.  We were forced to go to Bukit Aman because the OCPD of Subang Jaya ACP Yahya Ramli and the Selangor CPO had refused our requests on behalf of the family to give written permission for the second post mortem.

As this was a police case, government hospitals take the unfortunate position that they will not undertake any further action without written permission in the form of a Police Form 61 signed by the police.  The request by the family was not enough. Regretably government hospitals still take this position although knowing that in death in custody cases, the police are in a position of conflict of interest and have in the past blocked requests for second post mortems such as in Kugan’s case.

I deplore today’s resource and time wasting exercise when valuable time of senior police officials are deployed in an unnecessary harassment exercise against opposition MPs taking up issues on behalf of citizens in their constituency.  I am informed that YB Gobind Singh was subjected to a similar interrogation last week on this same incident.

I call upon the IGP to ensure that the valuable resources of the police force are not misused in this fashion. OCPD’s or CPO’s  or for that matter any police officer who initiate such acts of harassment should be taken to task and disciplined.
The resources of the police force should be focused on crime fighting. A senior ASP acting on orders is wasting his time recording statements from YB Gobind and myself and conducting an investigation into alleged criminal offences conducted by us when we were in fact carrying out duties as elected representatives.

There are far more serious issues in this country that warrant investigation. A very good example would be the recent public revelation by PI Bala’s lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu that Tan Sri Cecil Abraham, a senior lawyer, had confirmed to him that PI Bala’s second SD was done by him on the instructions of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.

This directly implicates the Prime Minister, his brother Nazim Tun Razak and all others involved in the commission of the offence of fabricating false evidence and suborning perjury – and even worse, the possibility that this offence was committed to keep hidden the names of those who directed Azilah and Sirul to commit the Altantuya murder. The resources of PDRM should be deployed to a reopening of this case.

Sivarasa Rasiah
Member of Parliament for Subang
Member, Majlis PImpinan Pusat and Biro Politik, Parti Keadilan Rakyat
 

Kematian Durairaju a/l Suppiah di Batu Caves

Kenyataan Media        9 February 2013

Durairaju A/L Suppiah – Meninggal Dunia Akibat Kecuaian Dan Kelalaian Jawatankuasa Kuil Batu Caves

1.Encik Durairaju A/L Suppiah (35 tahun) telah meninggal dunia pada 3 Februari 2013 (Ahad) di perkarangan Batu Caves. Kecuaian dan kelalaian Jawatankuasa Batu Caves yang diketuai oleh Datuk R Nadarajah telah mengakibatkan kematian Encik Durairaju.

2.Encik Durairaju bersama keluarganya telah sampai di Batu Caves pada 3 Februari 2013, lebih kurang jam 12.30pm.
Bersama beliau ialah Puan Thavamani Devi A/P Munusamy (isteri), Thineswary (anak – 15 tahun), Tanes (anak – 13 tahun), Prakash (anak – 12 tahun) dan Tarani (anak – 6 tahun).

Turut bersama mereka ialah adik kandung iaitu Encik Puvanes, Encik Gunalan, Puan Parames (isteri Encik Gunalan), Mogan dan Komala (anak Encik Gunalan). 
 
3.Beliau bersama keluarganya telah menaiki anak tangga untuk membayar nazar mereka. Tiada sebarang kesan semasa beliau menaiki anak tangga tersebut.

4.Beliau juga telah membeli resit ‘archanai’ untuk menyempurnakan nazar keluarga beliau.

5.Setelah selesai menyempurnakan nazar keluarga beliau, beliau memaklumkan kepada isterinya bahawa beliau rasa pening dan pitam. Akibat situasi ini, beliau telah terduduk.

6.Selepas itu, beliau telah membaringkan diri hampir 2 jam, kerana tidak mampu untuk bangun dan turun ke bawah.

7.Lebih kurang jam 2.30pm, beliau telah mencuba untuk bangun dan mampu duduk di atas sebuah kerusi yang berdekatan.

8.Oleh kerana rasa pening dan pitam beliau sekali lagi telah membaringkan diri. Ketika ini, isterinya meramalkan bahawa suaminya telah meninggal dunia.

9.Selepas itu, dengan pertolongan orang ramai yang berada di sekitar tempat kejadian, telah mendukung dan membawa beliau ke bawah.

10.Isteri telah mendapatkan sebuah teksi untuk membawa suaminya ke klinik yang berdekatan.

11.Setelah tiba di klinik tersebut, lebih kurang jam 3.30pm, doktor memberitahu keluarga bahawa Encik Durairaju telah meninggal dunia.

12.Bedah siasat telah dilakukan di Hospital Selayang lebih kurang jam 9pm. Jenazah beliau telah dibawa ke rumah lebih kurang jam 1am pada 4 Februari 2013.

13.Persoalan yang timbul melalui kematian Encik Durairaju ialah:

a)Mengapa TIADA sebarang bantuan kecemasan dan perubatan termasuk bantuan daripada Bulan Sabit Merah (Red Cross Crescent) disediakan seperti pada Hari Thaipusam?

b)Mengapa TIADA pegawai perubatan dan/atau jururawat disediakan untuk bertugas sepanjang masa memandangkan ramai penganut dan pengunjung yang akan hadir pada hari terakhir?

c) Mengapa TIADA ambulans dan/atau klinik bergerak disediakan memandangkan terlalu ramai penganut dan pengunjung yang datang pada hari itu?

14.Saya percaya bahawa Encik Durairaju dapat diselamatkan sekiranya bantuan perubatan   diberikan kepada beliau. Kegagalan beliau mendapat bantuan perubatan adalah disebabkan kecuaian dan kelalaian Jawatankuasa Batu Caves. 

15.Jawatankuasa Batu Caves yang diketuai oleh Datuk R Nadarajah sepatutnya menyediakan bantuan kecemasan dan perubatan yang sewajarnya memandangkan kejadian sebegini bukan kejadian di luar jangkaan.

16.Jawatankuasa Batu Caves yang diketuai oleh Datuk R Nadarajah sepatutnya membuat persediaan untuk mendapat bantuan pegawai perubatan, jururawat dan bantuan daripada Bulan Sabit Merah di perkarangan Batu Caves untuk membantu panganut dan pengunjung yang memerlukan bantuan sebegini.   

17.Jawatankuasa Batu Caves yang diketuai oleh Datuk R Nadarajah sepatutnya menyediakan perkhidmatan ambulans dan sebuah klinik bergerak (sekurang – kurangnya) di perkarangan Batu Caves setiap masa memandangkan ratusan dan ribuan pengunjung yang melawat tempat ibadat ini dan bilangan ini semakin bertambah.  

18. Saya mendesak Jawatankuasa Batu Caves yang diketuai oleh Datuk Nadarajah untuk:

i)bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya terhadap kehilangan Encik Durairaju kerana kehilangan nyawa beliau berlaku di perkarangan Batu Caves di bawah pentadbiran mereka.

ii)bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya untuk membayar gantirugi kepada keluarga Encik Durairaju memandangkan beliau merupakan pencari nafkah tunggal keluarga yang terdiri daripada isteri dan 4 orang anak yang sedang belajar. 

iii)bertanggungjawab untuk mengambil langkah serta merta dengan meletakkan sebuah klinik bergerak termasuk pegawai perubatan dan jururawat untuk memberi bantuan kecemasan dan perubatan dalam jangka masa terdekat. 

v) bertanggungjawab untuk menyediakan pondok perubatan atau klinik perubatan yang tetap sebagai penyelesaian jangka masa panjang supaya insiden sebegini tidak berulang pada masa hadapan.

19.Saya amat dukacita dan sedih dengan insiden ini. Insiden ini tidak sepatutnya berlaku. Insiden ini merupakan sebuah insiden yang serius. Saya menegaskan sekali lagi bahawa Encik Durairaju sepatutnya bersama kita sekarang sekiranya bantuan perubatan diberikan kepada beliau. Kegagalan beliau mendapat bantuan perubatan adalah disebabkan kecuaian dan kelalaian Jawatankuasa Batu Caves dan ini telah mengakibatkan seorang nyawa telah terkorban di tempat ibadat yang mulia ini. 

YB Sivarasa Rasiah
Ahli Parlimen Subang.
Ahli Biro Politik dan Majlis Pimpinan Pusat,
Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

Response to RPK's lies

Press statement by Sivarasa Rasiah in response to the scandalous lies of Raja Petra Kamaruddin – 14th August 2012
Raja Petra  does his lies again!
I refer to Raja Petra’s article published on his blog “Malaysia Today” entitled “The day I met P. Balasubramaniam (part 3) which makes  scandalous and false allegations against me and another lawyer M. Puravalen.
Raja Petra does his usual spin of mixing truth and fiction in order to make a story sound interesting. Unfortunately for him, lies remain lies.
Let me give an example of how he did this just a few weeks ago on 18.7.12 in his blog. He dramatically did this opening intro for an article:
“When Sivarasa was in the opposition, he represented Sri Aman Development against MBPJ. Once Pakatan Rakyat took over the Selangor State Government, Sivarasa did a U-turn. He changed sides. He became a turncoat and represented MBPJ against Sri Aman Development ...”
I have never represented Sri Aman Development against MBPJ or in any case for that matter. That is a fiction created by RPK.  It is true that I acted for MBPJ when Sri Aman Development sued MBPJ in a judicial review action. You can read about the details at  http://sivarasa.blogspot.com/2012/01/raja-petras-scurrilous-and-dishonest.html.   So RPK’s words such as “U-turn”, “changed sides”, “turncoat” are all interesting sounding but in essence mischievous and false statements.
In the same way, he creates fictions ( i.e. lies ) in his recent above mentioned  article.
Example 1.
He says I invited him to a meeting at lawyer M Puravalen’s house on 2nd July 2008 – this is the day before the press conference at PKR Headquarters where P. Balasubramaniam’s  (“Bala” ) 1st SD made on 1st July 2008 was made public.
 RPK also says that at this meeting “ In the presence of Sivarasa and Puravalen, Bala and his ex-police officer friend boasted how they used to bump off criminals and got rid of their bodies. Azilah, Sirul and we  were all in the same team, they laughed”. This is a malicious FICTION created by RPK to attempt to smear me, Puravalen and Bala.  It is false that Bala knew Sirul and Azilah and that that fact was made known to me and Puravalen.
If Bala had truly known Sirul and Azilah, he would probably have been charged together with them.  In fact the police remanded Bala for about 2 weeks after the murder of Altantuya  on a section 302 murder charge investigation.  He was released without being charged.
RPK was invited to that meeting in Puravalen’s house the day before the 3nd July press conference to be given a pre-view of Bala’s 1st SD to put up on his blog and write about it which he did.
Example 2
RPK then goes on to say that after that meeting in Puravalen’s house, we adjourned for dinner at a nearby Italian restaurant to discuss the following day’s conference. Then, he adds, “Sivarasa coached Bala on what he should and should not say at the press conference”.
This is the same mixture of truth and fiction. It is true that we all went to the Italian restaurant. The rest of the allegations which I have highlighted above ie that we went there to discuss the press conference  and that I coached Bala what to say is all a malicious lie and a fiction created by RPK.
What he does not mention is that we simply went to the restaurant because Puravalen had a pre-arranged dinner commitment there with some other friends.  We did not go there purely to discuss the press conference. In fact Bala was quite open about his SD and mentioned the contents to the others present.
What RPK has omitted to mention from his story is that Americk Sidhu, a senior and reputable lawyer  and who is also Bala’s lawyer, was present at the house and also at dinner at the Italian restaurant.  RPK also omits to mention that he knew all along that Bala’s 1st SD was actually prepared by Americk after weeks of discussions and meetings with Bala going over all the details.  It is quite far-fetched to suggest a scenario where I am coaching Bala in front of his own lawyer and people I had just met for the first time.  Americk was also present at the press conference the next day at PKR HQ.
RPK might want to ask Americk for his recollection of the events at Puravalen’s house and also at the restaurant.  He might also want to check with his own wife Marina as she was present throughout.
Example 3
RPK then goes on to spin the fiction that I asked Anwar Ibrahim to arrange for a Chinese tycoon to pay Bala RM20,000 per month in India . This again is a malicious lie and made to suggest that Bala was given a financial inducement to make a false SD.
Let me state this for the record – no one including myself offered or gave Bala any financial inducement to make the 1st SD.
Americk Sidhu has in fact informed me of a very interesting fact - that it was RPK himself who organised some financial help for Bala after he uploaded the interviews that Bala did in Singapore in November 2009  which were widely reported in the Internet ( the urls are cited in RPK’s Part 3 ).  I have no problem with RPK helping Bala who was by then already over a year overseas. But RPK needs to be honest about why he is now  singing quite a different tune and attacking Bala to suit a UMNO/BN script.  But I suppose we cannot expect anything different now from RPK after his TV3 ( just prior Sarawak State elections )  and Utusan interviews ( end of 2011 ).
Example 4
Another lie he creates in the last two paragraphs of his article is that I promised to arrange another financier to support Bala in return for him doing his recent interviews  with Malaysiakini where Bala  revealed the attempts by Deepak Jaykisnan and  UMNO Deputy Minister Hamzah Zainuddin to get him to sign statements smearing  me and Anwar ibrahim and in return to get a deal to come home.
For  the record, I do not go around paying anyone to make false statements.  I would have better use for the millions of ringgit that I would have needed to do that, which I don’t have in the first place.
Americk Sidhu as Bala’s lawyer is fully aware of all the moves that Deepak and Hamzah Zainuddin made and documented the entire affair to expose the manner in which UMNO was still trying to get Bala to backtrack on his 1st SD.    
Example 5
Another false and mischievous insinuation that RPK tries to sneak into his article is the idea that SUARAM coached Bala on what to say to the French investigators.  This is a somewhat foolish assertion as RPK himself knew at all times that Bala did his statement to the French investigators in the presence of his lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon whose seniority, experience and public profile is well-known.
RPK’s allegations a feeble, belated attempt to damage Bala’s credibility
 I conclude this response by saying this. The real issue is not what RPK is conjuring up now.  The real issue is the truth about the real murderer of Altantuya.  The Malaysian public understands that Azilah and Sirul were merely the instruments in the murder of Altantuya. The real murderer is the person or persons who directed these 2 policemen to kill her and dispose completely of her body by blowing it to bits with C4 explosive.
This question as to who is the real murderer/s was never really probed by the police, the AG’s Chambers ( at least from what we know publicly ) and also in the farce of the murder  trial that took place.  The question of what role Musa Safiri ( Najib’s ADC ) played and why he was making calls to the 2 policemen the night they killed Altantuya was never allowed to be probed.
The question of what Nasir Safar ( Najib’s private secretary for 20 years ) was doing driving around slowly in a blue Proton in front of Razak Baginda’s house shortly before the 2 policemen/killers take Altantuya  away is also not asked.
The question whether it is true ( as asserted in Bala’s video interview in Singapore, put up by RPK himself ) that Najib’s brother, Nazim Razak met him on the night of 2nd July 2008 to threaten and also bribe him to retract the 1st SD)  needs to be answered.
Why the Attorney General Gani Patail and the police are so reluctant to prosecute Bala for the offence of making a false SD if the 1st SD is claimed to be false is also very revealing and a key question in itself.
So what RPK is doing now are simply irrelevant side-shows to try to discredit Bala at a very late stage of the game.
If Bala’s credibility is an issue, then this should have been easily resolved a long  time ago with the AG charging him for making a false SD and also charging Americk Sidhu for abetting in that offence.  The fact that the AG refuses to do anything and our learned Minister Nazri ( in charge of legal affairs ) maintains that Bala has committed no offence speak volumes about where the truth lies.

Sivarasa Rasiah, Member of Parliament for Subang.
Member of Central Leadership Council and Political Bureau for Parti Keadilan Rakyat

Do not damage the full potential and future of SRJK(T) Effingham

27th July 2012

Do not damage the full potential and future of SRJK(T) Effingham - return the land to the school
I am completely disappointed with Dato Seri Palanivel's announcement on Effingham on Monday this week. Instead of correcting an injustice committed by MIC by stealing the land from the school, he is now trying to hoodwink the public with his announcement that MIC will build a hostel for poor students and a multi-purpose hall/ sports centre on the land to be used by all the 523 Tamil schools in the country.
Palanivel needs to understand and recognise first that MIC should never have made the application to the BN Selangor government in 1999 to take 3 acres of the original 6 acre site allocated by the developer for a primary school.  MIC should instead have insisted with the BN government, which they are part of, that SRJK (T) Effingham was entitled to 6 acres like all the primary schools in the area including the nearby SRJK (C) Puay Chai which is sitting on 6 acres of land.  Instead MIC looked selfishly at its own interest and applied for the land to build its party headquarters. As far as I am concerned, this was a foul theft of the highest order of the land from the school.
Today because of the public pressure to return the land to the school, MIC is forced to give up its original plan to build its party headquarters. They also know that as long as the Pakatan Rakyat rules Selangor, they will never be allowed to build that party headquarters.
So Palanivel's announcement has no sincerity. It is simply a meaningless exercise in damage control which does not address the real issue - the need for the 3 acres for SRJK (T) Effingham to ensure that that generations of  Effingham Tamil school children have a decent school with decent facilities.
It is ridiculous to expect that 523 Tamil schools all over the country can enjoy the use of a hostel located in Bandar Utama. It is a foolish proposition. Equally foolish is the idea that the Tamil schools all over the country can enjoy the sports facilities that the MIC intend to build on the 3 acres.  Such facilities should be available close to the Tamil schools wherever they are.
Palanivel is burying his head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich and refusing to see the need of SRJK (T) Effingham is paramount. The school does not need a hostel or those sports facilities. Right now they cannot even have a proper 100 meter running track because MIC stole those 3 acres. Why is he talking nonsense about building sports facilities? What SRJK (T) Effingham needs is the 3 acres of land so that the school can provide decent facilities to its 500 students. It needs the 3 acres so that Tamil parents in the area can see that the school can provide decent facilities of an acceptable standard to the children there. Only then will more Tamil parents be encouraged to send their children there.
What Palanivel and MIC are doing now by refusing to return the 3 acres is to destroy the full potential of SRJK (T) Effingham to best educate generations of Tamil children. This statement by Palanivel only further confirms the hypocrisy of MIC when they claim themselves as so-called guardians of the interest of the Indian community in Malaysia.



Sivarasa Rasiah
Ahli Parlimen Subang
Anggota Majlis Pimpinan Pusat Parti Keadilan Rakyat

Public Assembly Bill 2011

Sivarasa:  "PR MPs will reject Bill"

"Najib memberi tapi dalam masa yang sama mengambil"

Kenyataan Media – YB Sivarasa, Ahli Parlimen Subang -  16hb September 2011

 “Najib memberi tapi dalam masa yang sama mengambil”

 Dalam ucapan sambutan Hari Malaysia tadi malam, Perdana Menteri Datuk Sri Najib mengisytiharkan ayat berikut “ Suka saya mengumumkan pada malam yang bersejarah ini, Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) akan dimansuhkan terus”.

Namun beliau secepatnya menambah bahawa “…dua undang-undang baru yang sesuai akan digubal di bawah semangat serta payung Perkara 149 Perlembagaan Persekutuan … untuk memelihara keamanan kesejahteraan dan kesentosaan serta kerukunan hidup rakyat dan negara”.

Ramai dikalangan kita mungkin tidak terus segera memahami makna yang tidak menyenangkan disebalik penggunaan perkataan “Perkara 149”.  Perkara 149 merupakan bahagian jelek Perlembagaan yang membolehkan kewujudan Akta ISA sebagai undang-undang yang sah.  Jika Perkara 149 tidak berada di sana, ISA dan kesemua undang-undang yang memperuntukkan penahanan tanpa bicara seperti Akta Dadah Berbahaya ( Langkah-langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 akan gugur kerana bercanggah dengan perlembagaan dan tidak sah.

Perkara 149 membenarkan undang-undang itu melanggar bahagian hak-hak asasi Perlembagaan seperti Perkara 5, 9 dan 10 yang menjamin perlindungan perbicaraan awam, antara perlindungannya, jadi dapat dikatakan ia sah diamalkan  "di sisi undang-undang".

Justeru, apa yang dibuat Najib tadi malam? Dalam cara yang tidak jujur, beliau membuatkan sebahagian rakyat Malaysia berfikir bahawa beliau melakukan ‘tindakan bersejarah’ dan menghapuskan kejahatan ISA dan penahanan tanpa bicara selama-lamanya. Tiada satupun yang menepati kebenaran. Beliau melakukan silap mata. Sekarang anda nampak, sekarang anda tidak nampak!

Beliau tidak menjelaskan dengan tuntas  bahawa penggubalan kedua-dua undang-undang baru  di bawah Perkara 149 itu, sebenarnya mengembalikan semula penahanan tanpa bicara, walaupun kononnya dengan cara yang lebih lunak yang masih belum dapat dilihat lagi.

Dalam erti kata lain, beliau hanya menyatakan hasratnya untuk menghapuskan ISA dan mengembalikan ia semula dalam pakaian baru yang  masih belum kita nampak. Ada udang disebalik batu, wajah yang sama bertopeng baru?

Frasa-frasa Najib saperti ‘transformasi politik’, ‘mengamalkan demokrasi yang berfungsi dan inklusif’  serta  ‘menjadi negara maju yang sepenuhnya’ semuanya tidak bermakna apa-apa, jika rakyat Malaysia masih terus menderitai penahanan tanpa bicara dengan kuasa diberi kepada Menteri untuk mengeluarkan perintah tahanan selama-lamanya.

Walaupun Najib menyatakan kuasa Menteri untuk menahan akan hanya untuk 'keganasan', janganlah kita lupa pada penahanan Saari Sungib (sekarang ADUN Hulu Kelang), Tian Chua (sekarang Ahli Parlimen Batu), aktivis Hishamuddin Rais (sekarang bloger TukarTiub) dan 7 orang yang lain pada bulan April 2001 kononnya kerana mereka 'menyimpan pelancar roket dan bom Molotov koktail'. Suatu dakwaan bodoh (atas kebodohannya sendiri) tanpa bukti yang pernah dihasilkan dalam satu kenyataan akhbar bertulis yang dikeluarkan oleh tidak lain dan tidak bukan daripada Ketua Polis Negara Norian Mai. Begitu juga seperti hal yang berlaku baru-baru ini, Dr Kumar Devaraj (Ahli Parlimen Sg Siput) dan lima rakan-rakan beliau ditahan di bawah Ordinan Darurat (yang berfungsi sama seperti ISA) kerana didakwa menjadi sebahagian daripada anasir subversif komunis militan.Satu-satunya bukti keterangan hanya berpandukan beberapa helai  t-shirt dengan wajah Che Guevara dan Abdullah CD, seseorang itu dapat  membelinya dengan mudah di pasar Chow Kit.

Dalam erti kata lain, jaminan lisan Najib semata-mata bahawa tiada siapa yang akan ditahan kerana ideologi politik sebenarnya merupakan kenyataan kosong kerana anda dapat melihat dalam contoh yang diberikan tadi, pihak polis (dan memang Menteri pun) dengan mudah menuduh  seseorang itu, khususnya ahli politik sebagai pengganas.

Jangan kita lupa, atas sebab inilah penahanan sewenang-wenangnya menjadi mercu tanda rejim-rejim zalim berpemerintahan kuku besi.

Najib membayangkan bahawa 'rangka perundangan khas yang digubal oleh negara-negara demokrasi yang maju seperti Amerika Syarikat dan United Kingdom untuk menangani keganasan adalah serupa dengan langkah-langkah kita  yang sedia ada seperti ISA dan tahanan pencegahan.  Ini memang merupakan kenyataaan yang mengelirukan.

Amerika Syarikat memperuntukkan kem tahanan Guantanamo Bay yang terkenal dan menjijikkan itu hanya kepada warga asing. Namun begitu, ia telah dikritik dengan meluas (dan benar) di selurung dunia kerana melanggar hak-hak asasi.  Malaysia sebaliknya kerap mengurung dan menganiaya warga setianya sendiri tanpa bicara awam. Melihat kata-kata Najib, Barisan Nasional bercadang untuk terus berbuat demikian.

Undang-undang khas di United Kingdom hanya membenarkan mereka untuk menahan rakyat asing yang bermasalah yang jika dihantar pulang kembali ke negara asal mereka akan tertakluk kepada penyeksaan dan penahanan oleh pihak berkuasa di sana.  Rakyat di UK tidak akan bertolak ansur untuk satu minit pun berkenaan apa yang kerajaan kita lakukan untuk rakyat kita sendiri  atas nama ISA dan undang-undang yang serupa.

Pakatan Rakyat menyatakan pendirian secara bertulis dalam Buku Jingga kami. Kami berkata bahawa sebuah kerajaan persekutuan Pakatan Rakyat akan memansuhkan terus Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) dan undang-undang lain yang membenarkan penahanan tanpa perbicaraan pada masa yang sama, membatalkan semua pengisytiharan darurat yang sedia ada.

Kami berpuas hati melihat Najib memutuskan untuk menerima pakai pandangan kami bahawa kita mesti membebaskan diri daripada pengisytiharan darurat masa lalu.  Kewujudan berterusan pengisytiharan darurat tersebut  telah menjadi sasaran ejekan di sini dan di luar negara khususnya kerana ketiadaan keadaan mirip darurat sekalipun di dalam negara selama beberapa dekad ini. Pakatan Rakyat pasti akan menyokong satu usul di Parlimen untuk membatalkan pengisytiharan darurat ini dan juga menggesa kesemua ordinan yang diluluskan dibawah pengisytiharan tersebut  perlu dimansuhkan dengan serta-merta tanpa perlu menunggu tempoh 6 bulan seperti yang diperuntukkan dalam Perkara 150 (7).

Bagaimanapun kami amat jauh berbeza dengan Najib yang berhasrat untuk terus mengekalkan amalan jijik penahanan tanpa bicara yang tidak akan berlaku dalam era pentadbiran Pakatan Rakyat.

Malah, kami akan melaksanakan reformasi menyeluruh pasukan polis dan agensi-agensi keselamatan lainnya. Kami akan memastikan pasukan polis diberi kuasa yang mencukupi, latihan dan sumber bagi menjalankan tanggungjawab utama mereka mencegah jenayah dan mengekalkan ketenteraman awam secara profesional, cekap dan bebas, di samping menghormati hak-hak asasi rakyat.

Sivarasa Rasiah, Ahli Parlimen Subang, Ahli Majlis Pimpinan Pusat dan Biro Politik untuk Parti Keadilan Rakyat