Fighting for Civil Liberties
The Emergency of May the 13th 1969 and the amendments plus maintenance of the Internal Security Act were both actions that were approved by both the Executive and the Legislature, and consequently validated by the Judiciary. It is therefore permissible to assume correctly that all three pillars of democracy henceforth agreed in tandem to subjugate the civil liberties of its people.
Nothing new because the Judiciary has always held the historical view that “freedoms were granted to the people and therefore subject to withdrawal”. Alternately, the Legislature took full advantage of this reasoning and utilized its potential to stay in power. The ISA is not a law that was introduced because of the Emergency but rather a law instituted by the Government-of-the-Day to suppress the civil liberties of its people. Their reasoning is simple: Zero civil liberties equal zero opposition and more power for them equates less power for the opposition.
This state of mind so unequivocally and categorically set down cannot be explained away by attempting to limit it to the subject matter that came up for adjudication. There exist no isolated and distinct “case-by-case” basis for this foundation. Either the civil liberties are granted or they are not. The lack of compunction to hold on to power, once tasted, is addictive especially when there exist no one or institution to safeguard against it. Once the premier institution of democracy embraces these vies, all institutions of governance begin to identify people as subjects with no right to change their lives and fate, both morally or legally. Their transformation as citizens, an identity that enables them to participate in governance, is disregarded and any people's movement to erect a better society or to bring forth better conditions in life and humanity is automatically perceived as a threat to their lofty status and henceforth to the security of the State, since they are regarded as the representation of the State. In that sense the 513 Emergency did not make any differentiation, as our comprehension of democracy has continuously been very superficial with regular polls satisfying our democratic conscience. Up until today, we still possess the same repressive legal structure continuing as a dominant component of governance. Up until today, the political discontent that occurred during the 513 Emergency, even though genuine, was never subjected to close examination. No attempts were ever made to resolve the crisis but instead permitted to fester until it was needlessly forced to be treated as a “law and order” issue.
The ISA is meant to be a law to be utilized to invoke the emergency provisions to contain internal disturbance. It should therefore only be invoked when there is a genuine threat of armed rebellion within the country. Nevertheless, since its provisions also allow the Executive to legally act outside the Judiciary with full indemnity without oversight, it became a law that was “too good to be true” to those in power. It is akin to holding “five” Aces in a game of draw poker using only one deck of playing cards, impossible as it is. Also noting and understanding that it exhibits no difference to being a fascist government, the Executive prohibited the frequent use of this law to subdue the opposition because the Executive had other strategies to establish repressive legislation without the necessity of suspending any of the fundamental rights (if any) and hence the introductions of laws such as the Sedition Act and the Printing Presses and Publications Act, which impeded freedom of speech; the Police Act, Dangerous Drugs Act and Restricted Residence Act, which took leave of the time honored principles of criminal jurisprudence. This could only have been achievable when the Government was strong, and a strong government need not necessarily be a good government as is adequately demonstrated here when check-and-balances are ineffectual.
Incarceration under these legislations is no different from any human rights crackdown. The powers from above has long maintained the assumption that advancing civil liberties over national security would undermine the country's economic development and easing restrictions on individual freedoms would encourage destabilization and undercut progress. Political and social consciousness was not constitutional rights that is learnt at school but were forced onto us when partiality and prejudice against one’s religion or race is brought forth into the open. It becomes even worse after being compounded by the widening class disparity and the Judiciary’s diminishing moral legitimacy as impartial arbiters. The ISA does not permit judicial intervention but who is to say that the appointed judge will remain impartial if ever granted such a day in court? Additionally, what is to stop them from incarcerating an individual for life?
The existence of civil liberties is only capable of commencing when these repressive laws are repealed and only then can democratic governance be truly effective. The initial step in the right direction would be for the King to withdraw all the existing State of Emergency proclamations (4) and only after this can the nation begin to move forward.
Hakim Joe
