The ISA – a primitive tool for a primitive society
Art Harun
Let me start by quoting Saint Augustine, who said :
“In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organised robbery?”
What distinguishes a modern democracy from totalitarianism, dictatorship or the olden days absolutist rule, whether monarchical or feudalist driven, or both, is the fact that the former observes the due process of the law in its administration of justice. In fact it observes the law in every single aspect of administration.
A modern democracy also ensures that power is not centred upon a tiny little head like that of a feudal King, or a dictator or someone who had the most number of sorcerers waving their little black wand to conjure magical solutions to every stately problem. While the system vests the power to rule with the Executive, it also empowers the Parliament to make laws in order to define the limits and boundaries of the power to rule.
However, the system recognises that the Executives as well as the Parliament, are consist of human beings who of course, are possessed with the normal mortal frailties, such as greed, stupidity, irrationality, unreasonableness and even malice. The system therefore builds an internal safety mechanism.
When the power is exercised wrongly, improperly, or irregularly, the aggrieved party could question such exercise of power in the Court. The judiciary – a fully independent judiciary, if I might add – is the safety mechanism.
The above is about as basic a statement about the doctrine of separation of powers in a democratic system which I could make. I can't make it any simpler. For any reasonable man – especially a so called leader – to not understand this concept is surely a cause for concern.
Now, lets go to the crux of the matter, namely, the Internal Security Act. What is so objectionable about it? What is it that I find repugnant about it? What?
