Moving forth with fortitude

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein is taking changes to the security laws in his stride.

By WONG CHUN WAI and MAZWIN NIK ANIS, The Star

THE Home Ministry is “home” to many laws that are contentious and controversial. But as the government had promised political transformation, Emergency Ordinances were rescinded and Restricted Residence and Banishment Acts were repealed. New and amended laws such as the Peaceful Assembly Act, the recently-passed Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill, Rela Act and amendments to Printing Presses and Publications Act are now taking their place in the ministry. In a candid interview, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein talks about the changes and their impact on the country’s political landscape.

Q: The Home Ministry is considered a formidable ministry. As Home Minister, how do you feel about this new (Security Offences) Act changing the political landscape of the country. In some ways, people say it is taking away your power.

A: It has been a painful journey that required a lot of courage. However, it had to be done, and now that it’s done, I am relieved. I am relieved the statute has been passed. Now I can talk about it and get it off my chest.

The changing landscape, both global and national, has forced us to re-look at ourselves. Whether the perception that powers of the minister have been taken away or these laws in the past have been abused is not an issue anymore. It should be a question of us looking at where we are now. To me, we are moving forward and I really believe these reforms reflect not only courage but the realisation that we need to reform.

> The Prime Minister has said it was hard for you to surrender the powers (of Home Minister under the Internal Security Act). Why do you find it hard?

It was not really difficult for me because I have never craved for power. Nobody who craves power should be in this position because it is a very powerful ministry that’s the personal aspect of it. Secondly, it is not about giving up any powers either; it is about balance. The PM also said it is about balance between national security and national interest with rights and freedom. The changes that were brought by doing away with the ISA and bringing in the Security Offences Act, I feel that balance has been achieved. It is not a question of power but making sure the public is safe. The new Act is a breath of fresh air after how the ISA was demonised. It is an exciting time for me to navigate those waters but I also want to state that it is not easy to achieve that balance. We have managed to achieve this with the passing of the statute without causing too much anxiety among stakeholders who have, since Independence, been used to a particular landscape and mindset. It is the mindset change that is the most difficult and engagement cannot be done overnight.

> The United States and Britain have their Patriot Act and Anti-Terrorism Act. How is ours (Act) compared to theirs?

We can’t compare because at the end of the day, the US and the UK have been independent, democratic and matured longer than us. To get where they are now, many people had to die. People asking for more rights and freedom must also weigh that with a society that is in transition. We have different level of maturity in Malaysia and there are different needs. If you add racial and religious components, it becomes a very dangerous cocktail if you don’t get the balance right. If it was only for populist reasons that we do it, I wouldn’t be this happy.

> When we talk about terrorism threats in Malaysia now, what exactly are we looking at? Based on previous records, they (terrorists) have had meetings here before they carry out their acts.

Militancy in whatever form, with the flow of people and money across borders, raises a lot of concern which many people cannot grapple with at the moment. But grapple with it we have to because if we get it wrong, it is a zero sum game. In transnational crime, including terrorism, there is the source, transit and destination countries. We have been lucky in the past that Malaysia has only been a transit country. What I have to decide now as Home Minister is the extent to which we should be more aggressive towards those who are here and looking at the country as a transit. They should no longer regard Malaysia as a safe haven for them to plan, get money and then later look at us as a target. I will have to decide based on the power (I have), information and how fast police can capacity build, how many links we can build with countries whether they are source or destination countries. Shared intelligence will cut short the time in which I have to decide to take action.

> Why do some of these groups like to use Malaysia as a transit? Is it because Malaysia has offered easy access for foreigners to come in?

We are a safe place for them to sit down to conduct their business in, but they don’t realise that we allow for them to be out there. It is a case of the devil you know (rather) than the devil you don’t. If you compare our position with our neighbours, there is no difference. The fact that they transit here does not mean they don’t transit in other countries. The bombings in Bangkok and Bali are examples.

> On security measures at local level, the approach for Bersih 2 and Bersih 3 seem to have differed quite a bit. Can you explain?

We do not look at the April 28 gathering as a security issue based on the information we have and what we went through during Bersih 1 and Bersih 2.

At the same time we have the Peaceful Assembly Act, which gives clear guidelines to the Minister when it comes to gatherings of this nature. That is the difference between Bersih 2 and 3. And I have made it clear that I want to allow them to have the assembly as long as it’s peaceful and provided that we are responsible for our actions. Definitely, this is another approach that comes with the maturity of our democracy and with progress of a society. We have to make sure the balance is always there because if it tips one way or the other, then there is no turning back.

> The public perception is that during Bersih 1, there was over action by the authorities who declared the movement as outlaw and banned the wearing of yellow T-shirts. On hindsight, don’t you think it was a case of over action?

What happened in London (riots) when it was on fire, there was a lot of public outcry for no reaction on the part of enforcement agencies. Each country will have to make decisions based on their experiences. If something went wrong during Bersih 2, the allegation that we were over reacting could well be reversed to one as in the UK where there was no reaction at all. So again, it is easier said than done. At the end of the day the buck stops with me. I’m quite immune to a no-win situation when it comes to public popularity but I sleep at night with my conscience clear because I do what I feel is best.

But yes, I think maybe we overdid it but we learned from it. For Bersih 3, we have the statute (Peaceful Assembly Act). We now have guidelines. It is not about power but giving me confidence in fulfilling my responsibility wisely, responsibly and based on the law. That fits my own nature and value system. What good is power if there is no country for us to live in? What good is power if people don’t respect you for the power that you have? That has been seen in extreme cases such as the Arab Spring. So we are all learning. And if we don’t learn fast and take action responsibly, we are not being fair to the future generation.

> Do you feel the right to assembly and protest is here to stay?

It has become a part of the global culture which even Myanmar has recognised. It is refreshing. But what is good about Myanmar, and we are doing it too, it is not just opening up our gates to full-fledged demonstrations. It is based on a guarded and level approach which is not easy for people to understand. Both sides are dealing with society in transition. One side wants to remain in their comfort zone while the other wants total freedom and right to speak. The Home Ministry, as a responsible ministry in a responsible government, will have to find a balance. We took care of all stakeholders. In parliament, I don’t hear any argument that what we have done was irresponsible and not what the people wanted. The public must be aware that what we did is for them and to do it, we had to balance so many different wants, needs and interests.

> What about the police? How are they reacting to these changes as they too have lost some powers and this is new to them?

If it wasn’t for them, I don’t think we would have been able to table the new statute and do away with the ISA. I give full credit to the police and at the end of the day it is their expertise and responsibility that make us all safe, including me and my children. Unless there was a mindset change among the police, I don’t think we could have gone to second base. I don’t think the public and even I give the police enough credit. I told them there are many opportunities emerging from the new landscape. Why the police is in this position is because we have not had a major intake in the police force since 1969. The priority then was security but since then, we were involved in industrialising the country. The last thing on the minds of Malaysians were security issues. Police were not in the forefront but suddenly now they are positioned in the national key result areas (NKRA) to look at crime. This is the opportunity for them to build capacity, the time for police not to be looked at in the negative light.

> The government has released statistics on the drop in crime rates. Even (Penang Chief Minister) Lim Guan Eng has admitted that crime rate has fallen in Penang. But even with these figures, the perception is the public still do not feel safe.

I totally agree and I believe our challenge is to deal with perception especially in a climate where it is an uphill task. There is a lot of cynicism, political consideration and people trying to paint the whole police force using the same brush. That is not fair. You get one or two bad apples but accuse the whole police force of being corrupt. I have seen pretty good, dedicated and courageous personnel in the force. I believe there is a great future provided they do so quickly as time is of the essence. I worry if the priority is no longer crime then the attention given to police will be less. Again, I really think not enough credit is given to them.

> Are the changes taking place because the government is bowing down to political pressure from the opposition?

Far from it. They tried to whitewash something that we have been working on for the past three years. To say that doing this at the last minute and just before the coming general election, I say it is rubbish. We were looking at it three years ago but unfortunately the people we engaged with were not willing to speak up. The very people who are criticising us are the very people we had engaged with.

The PM had talked about either amending or doing away with the ISA as soon as he got into office which was years ago. How on earth can the opposition be talking about that (changes being done at the last minute because the general election is near)? It is about changing circumstances. The (old) laws may have been archaic but that doesn’t mean they are irrelevant. What we have done now is we have a new set of reforms. When you talk about the Political Transformation Programme it is not just about new security laws. We have also amended the Umno constitution and re-looked at the composition of Barisan Nasional. I hope the public can see we are sincere and serious.

It is not just about politics and, unlike the opposition who look at present political climate to champion a cause, Barisan looks at what we are able to do and national interest. I’ll let the public judge whether we are taking populist measures.

> Since you have said that Bersih 3 is not a security issue, what kind of police presence can we expect on that day?

Let me clearly state again that we are open to those who want to gather peacefully. We have proven that we are open to criticisms. Since it is not a security issue, I have allowed the owners of Dataran Merdeka, which is Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL), to decide whether or not to allow the gathering to be held there. They have received three applications to gather, from an anti-free sex assembly, Bersih 3 and Perkasa.

I expect DBKL to be consistent (in their decision) but that doesn’t stop organisers from looking at other venues. Since it is not a security issue, if there is increase in police presence, it is only to assist them to get to the venue. We have made a clear stand that we allow peaceful assembly so we can’t say one thing and get the Act passed and do something else. We walk the talk.

> Of all the NKRAs would you agree that the most difficult to achieve so far has been the one on fighting corruption?

Yes. Next comes crime. We are dealing with intangibles. Yes, we have reduced the index but the intangible of perception that people are not safe is still something we are grappling with.

As for corruption, no matter what action you take we still have to deal with perception, legacies, mindset and baggage. I would not want to go on much about corruption as it is not under my purview but I believe if we get it right, there will be a lot of countries wanting to learn from us, even developed ones. It is a phenomenon that happens not only in Malaysia but everywhere.

I am proud the Inspector General of Police (Tan Sri Ismail Omar) is invited to many countries to share our experience in combating crime. It looks like we are getting some of it right. I am not saying all of it and we still have a long way to go but we are on the right direction.

> On the Printing Presses and Publications Act, why still the need for a permit?

We have amended the Act as far as (renewal of) yearly licence is concerned. At the end of the day both sides have to be responsible before we even look at doing away with permits, because when it comes to demands, the goal post always changes. No one will ever be satisfied with just what you have today. The media, having seen that the government is sincere in looking at the issue of free press, will also have to share the responsibility. Let us look at how, in a world that is so free when it comes to information and reporting, it does not actually affect the very fabric of Malaysian society when it comes to religion, unity, race. That is why I hope the media will be forthcoming. If you are more forthcoming, look at self-regulation and then we can look at (the issue of) permits.

> We have come to the last lap on the eve of the general election. Do you think in these three years and with the work that has been done, the public will thank you, or will they say it is too late?

Only the people can answer that but I hope they will look at who has actually shown consistency. In the past, Barisan has talked about success but under Najib’s leadership, he is talking about reforms. In that reform process, we walk the talk. As we speak, we are at the tail end of the transformation the political transformation and it is the hardest. I can’t see the opposition showing proof of what they have done in the states where they were given mandates. I believe people are disappointed with them when it comes to the issue of unity, foresight, consistency and ability to be a responsible government. I believe we have been dealt with unfairly but in the last three years, we have shown that at least we are serious, determined to walk the talk and consistent in what we have promised and what we have done. Whether it is enough depends on the people. That we will see in the 13th general election. Give us a big mandate and we will give you more of this.