Tun M Bantah Pemansuhan Akta Hasutan

15 10 2018

Apabila kerajaan digesa untuk menghapuskan Akta Hasutan 1948 dan digantikan dengan akta baharu, Tun Dr. Mahathir telah membuat satu kenyataan di dalam blognya, Chedet.

Beliau dengan tegasnya membantah gesaan tersebut kerana sebab-sebab yang sangat penting demi kesejahteraan dan kestabilan negara.

“Apabila Akta Hasutan digugur maka rakyat Malaysia akan bebas menghasut. Kedua-dua akta baru berkenaan dengan harmoni dan uniti tidak akan menghalang hasutan yang akan berlaku.”

Antara sebab-sebab lain yang Tun berikan ialah apabila dimansuhkan akta tersebut, “rakyat akan menerima berbagai-bagai hasutan”, antaranya mungkin hasutan supaya institusi diraja dihapuskan.

“Rakyat akan menerima berbagai-bagai hasutan, termasuk hasutan untuk meminda perlembagaan Malaysia. Tidaklah mustahil mereka akan menghasut supaya institusi raja juga dihapuskan.”

Saya amat bersetuju dengan kenyataan Tun, memandangkan walaupun Akta Hasutan masih ada, sudah terdapat rakyat yang secara terang-terangan menghina dan mahu mengubah Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan menghapuskan institusi diraja.

Jika kini, orang-orang sebegini bebas menghasut walaupun ada Akta Hasutan, bayangkan nanti berapa ramai penghasut-penghasut yang akan lahir jika Akta Hasutan dimansuhkan.

Seperti apa yang Tun tegaskan, negara kita akan menjadi huru-hara jika rakyat bebas menghasut, dan ia akan menghancurkan keharmonian dan kestabilan negara, terutamanya di saat getir seperti sekarang apabila kerajaan baru sahaja bertukar dan masih mencari rentak dalam mentadbir negara.

“Kemungkinan ialah huru-hara akan berlaku dalam negara. Inilah kesan dari sikap liberal yang kita agungkan sekarang.”

Saya amat menyokong pandangan Tun dalam mempertahankan Akta Hasutan seperti dalam tulisan Tun yang telah Tun terbitkan pada 30 Jun 2014.

Saya berharap Tun masih percaya dengan pandangan Tun itu, dan akan pertegaskan lagi perkara ini di saat terdapat ura-ura kerajaan baru Tun mahu menghapuskan Akta Hasutan.

Ramai rakyat mahu Tun bertindak tegas mempertahankan Akta Hasutan, setegas ketika Tun pernah mempertahankan Akta Hasutan dan ISA pada masa Tun masih bersama UMNO.

Masakan Tun mahu melihat negara menjadi huru-hara akibat rakyat bebas dihasut termasuk hasutan untuk menghapuskan sistem diraja yang kelak boleh merosakkan kesejahteraan rakyat?

Wallahua’lam…


Related Posts:

Advertisements




Mansuh SOSMA Buka Ruang Jenayah Ekstremis Terancang

26 07 2018

(UTUSAN) – KUALA LUMPUR 24 Julai – Provokasi perkauman dan jenayah ekstremis terancang akan bermaharajalela sekiranya Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) dimansuhkan.

Bekas Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hassan berkata, SOSMA adalah satu akta yang adil dan mengikut undang-undang negara.­

“SOSMA hanya boleh menahan seseorang selama 28 hari sahaja sebelum dibawa ke mahkamah untuk pertuduhan dan jika didapati tidak bersalah, tahanan boleh dilepaskan.

“Sebelum ini kita sudah mansuhkan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) dan kali ini SOSMA pula ingin dimansuhkan. Undang-undang lembut macam mana lagi yang kita mahu laksana­kan?” katanya kepada Utusan Malaysia di sini hari ini.

Sebelum ini, Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad berkata kerajaan akan memansuhkan SOSMA yang dilihat tidak telus bagi memberi keadilan kepada semua rakyat.

Jelas Dr. Mahathir, rakyat berhak untuk dilindungi oleh undang-undang yang adil dan bukannya bersifat zalim kepada rakyat seperti dilaksanakan kerajaan terdahulu.

Menurut Musa, mereka yang ditahan di bawah SOSMA me­lakukan jenayah yang besar se­perti penyeludupan manusia dan aktiviti keganasan jenayah terancang.

“Sekarang ini semakin ramai­ anggota kumpulan militan Daesh ditangkap dan itu adalah ancaman serta disiasat di bawah SOSMA. Sebab itu kena ada undang-undang yang tegas demi keamanan negara,” jelasnya.

Ujar beliau, perlu ada sebab khusus mengapa akta itu hendak dimansuhkan kerana tahanan diberi peluang untuk dibicarakan di mahkamah dan perkara itu adalah adil buat mereka.

Menurut beliau, negara kuasa besar seperti Amerika Syarikat juga memiliki undang-undang jauh lebih keras seperti Akta Patriot yang membolehkan seseorang itu ditahan di mana-mana sahaja di seluruh dunia.





Ambiga Mahu Kembalikan ISA?

18 09 2015

On August 29, 2015 The Malaysia Insider (TMI) wrote that in her speech at Bersih 4, Ambiga Sreenevasan wants the government to listen to the loud voice of the demonstrators:

“Former Bersih 2.0 co-chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan wants all members of parliament (MP) to move a vote of no-confidence against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s leadership in Parliament after the “loud message” sent by tens of thousands of Malaysians who rallied during Bersih 4 today.” – TMI

Claiming that the voices of the 20,000 illegal Bersih 4 demonstrators as the voices of the people, G25 spokeswoman, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin told TMI that she wants the government to listen to the “suara rakyat” and said that if she is the PM, she would listen to their demands.

Click me for the article

Please click image for the article

So logically, the legal Himpunan Rakyat Bersatu‘s 250,000 voices are much more louder than the illegal Bersih 4’s 20,000 voices.

And since both Ambiga and Noor Farida are fair and just people who are fighting for the government to listen to the voices of the people; now they surely want the government to do as what had been demanded by the 250,000 legal Himpunan Rakyat Bersatu participants.

So, Ambiga and Noor Farida must now push the government of Malaysia to bring back ISA as demanded by the ‘suara rakyat’!

They claimed that Bersih and G25 have no political motives and are marching on the roads to make the government listen to voices of the people; so they must now prove to the world that they are not bias and unfair; as what they always say about our government.

The “baju merah” were represented by the Malays while the “baju kuning” were represented by the Chinese, but it does not matter because after all we are all Malaysians, and both Ambiga and Noor Farida are not bias, aren’t they?





My View On Waco’s Twin Peaks Shooting

4 06 2015

A shootout between rival biker gangs on a Sunday afternoon at a Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, Texas, had killed 9 people and injured 18 others.

Sadly, shootings and violent incidents seems to becoming a norm in once a civilised country. 
The Guardian reported that sergeant Patrick Swanton, a spokesperson for Waco police department, said in a press conference on Monday after the incident that:

Police in Waco have charged 170 people with “organised crime in reference to … capital murder” in what could potentially represent the largest mass arrest on a capital charge in American history. – The Guardian.

The Guardian also reported that sergeant Patrick Swanton as saying:

“What happened here today could have been avoided,” he said. “They [the restaurant management] failed and this is what happened.”- The Guardian.

So, the incident could have been avoided?

He added: “We have been made aware over two months that rival gangs are meeting here and that the potential for violence is increasing.” – The Guardian.

Police were already present at the scene because authorities were aware of the likelihood of trouble between the gangs, Swanton said,”The Guardian.

The police had suspected some violent incident to happen during the meeting between the gangs; so they were there at the scene; but they do not have the rights to interfere before the incident happen because they have no rights to do so!

He said that police had attempted to get the local management to assist but they “would not cooperate”. – The Guardian.

The First Amendment in the American constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As what I had asked before, is too much freedom good for us?

This shooting could have been avoided if:

  1. The police had the rights to take actions to prevent  the violent incident from happening.

  2. The government of United States does not give the total freedom of owning and carrying guns to their citizens.

In this case, the police had done their job and they were actually there before the shooting started but sadly, their hands were tied.

The police can’t do anything because not like Singapore, the United States does not have laws like the Internal Security Act (ISA) of Singapore (Cap. 143, 1985 Rev. Ed.), where police can take actions to prevent such crime if they have information that it could happen; furthermore carrying guns is legal in the United States.

Innocent people and children could had been killed and the police could not do anything to stop it from happening in the first place.

It is sad that such a violent incident that could had been prevented can’t be stopped.

After all the mass shootings in the United States, is it right for the United States to tell Malaysia to repeal the Sedition Act after the Western powers and the United Nations had forced Malaysia to abolish the ISA?

Without the laws, mass shooting and mass killing like the Sandy Hook shooting incident could be a norm in Malaysia just like in the United States.

I am surprised that the United States had not learnt that too much freedom and the rights to carry guns are part of the reasons that had caused the many incidents of mass shootings and mass killings and expect other country to abolish laws that could prevent such incidents.

Perhaps the government of Singapore can brief the United Nations on why they still keep the ISA.

Is total freedom to do anything they want as demanded by the human rights groups is more important than preserving a peaceful community and the safety  of minors and old people who may not be able to protect themselves? 








%d bloggers like this: