YOURSAY 'Nobody is on the side of criminals but on the side of protecting the individual's civil rights to be treated with fairness and equality.'

Don't take the side of 'criminals', Zahid tells NGOs

Quigonbond: Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi sounds very presidential, as in President George W Bush - you're either with us or against us, he'd say.

For me, it's very simple. If the amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act (PCA) are intended only for battling organised crime, then make that explicit.

We're so used to empty platitudes from BN government that just saying "it's not intended for political opposition" isn't good enough.

If it's not intended for political opposition, then put those language/exceptions in, and make the language comprehensive - that's criticism against the government, against political parties, for myriad reasons including administration of justice, corruption, abuse of power, as well as inciting racial or religious hatred.

The defence of the truth should be thrown in. Then we will believe you have Malaysia's best interests at heart.

Real Truth: Zahid, why not add a clause in the PCA that it cannot be used on civil society, NGOs and politicians and only for the sole purpose of arresting common criminals who are involved in the drug trade, gangsterism and rape?

Bamboo: There are enough laws against criminals. The problem is police don't do their work and/or are protecting criminals. We are against the PCA so that we can fight for our right to be free, without the risk of detention without trial.

PCA is ISA in another guise, we don't trust BN not to abuse it.

James Dean: Laws are made to prevent crimes; those who are alleged to commit a crime are charged under those laws. Until and unless they are found guilty and sentenced, they are not criminals.

For example, someone alleged you punched him but you were not charged and found guilty therefore you are not a criminal. Right?

No one in their right mind will side any criminal. The feedback you are getting is from concerned stakeholders who feel that this law can be abused and used against those the government doesn't like.

Boiling Mud: Don't take the side of 'criminals? I think the minister missed the point here. It is not about taking the side of any party.

It is about bulldozing though a draconian law that violates the fundamental rights of a human being. What is the intelligence quotient of this minister?

Bash: People who cannot explain issues properly usually throw tantrums, make threats and go away in a huff. Worst, they think that we should have no right to our opinions. Zahid is a clear example.

AnesthMO: Instead of explaining intelligently his stand and position. Zahid resorts to ad hominem (personal) attacks.

Up2U: Of course, nobody except for criminals will take the side of criminals. The concern here is the abuse of powers when ordinary people or politicians are victimised by those in power under the proposed PCA.

Changenow: PCA is to shut down Pakatan, Suaram, Bersih and others who are against Umno for good.

BH Yap: Don't take the side of criminals? Look who's talking. What about those cronies who have taken so much money from the rakyat and not brought to court?

Xtcher: The arguments put forward so far for the amendments to the PCA are no different from those when the Emergency Ordinance and Internal Security Act were tabled in the Parliament. The PM then (no less!) promised on behalf of the government that those laws would not be abused.

But what did the people experience? Wasn't a female reporter detained "for her own safety"? Another politician was put into a difficult situation on an unfounded allegation that she had asked a mosque to turn down the volume of its speakers?

Weren't there opposition members put away under the ISA without charges made? It's against such experiences that we are voicing our concern against the amendments now proposed for the PCA.

We're not pro-criminals. We're pro the innocent from being victims of abuse of power. After all, didn't a judge once said that it's better to err and let a suspected criminal go free than to hang even one innocent person?

ipohcrite: The rakyat and NGOs are not taking the side of criminals but are talking about human rights and the rule of law. If the Home Ministry had been serious about policing work, and not let the crime rate hit sky-high levels, the crime situation would not be as alarming as it is today.

The rakyat are objecting to draconian laws because the BN government has a consistent track record of abusing laws to suit its political agenda. For instance, you don't use the ISA to arrest political opponents and justify it by saying you are placing them under arrest for their protection.

Grow up, Zahid, and do the job the rakyat pays you to do. The rakyat do not owe you a living but you jolly well owe the rakyat one by taking home your minister's pay.

Armageddon: Even a Form 1 student knows that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, how could Zahid say that we are taking side of criminals?

A person may be accused of crime, but until proven in a court of law, that person should not be labeled as a criminal. Labeling an innocent person a criminal, is a criminal act.

Adsertor: It is about human rights, civil liberty and the guiding principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty'. Why are Umno's leaders so dull-headed?

Jean Pierre: The problem is, the distinction between the law enforcers and the criminals are becoming an increasingly grey area. People are having the same trepidation and intimidation when facing law enforcers as when facing a criminal.

SS Dhaliwal: For Zahid, it's a case of either you are with me or against me. Nobody is on the side of criminals but on the side of protecting the individual's civil rights to be treated with fairness and equality.

We are well aware of Umno's devious ways and know that this law will be used in the future against political opponents and critics alike, who will be deemed as a threat to national security for voicing out against Umno's rampant corruption and abuse of powers - just like how Dr Mahathir Mohamad used the ISA to imprison opposition leaders under Ops Lalang.

Star Wars: Zahid, we rise in support of the separation of powers as established by our founding fathers in the constitution. The constitution clearly delegates the power to deal with criminals to the courts and not the executive.

The executive and the legislative arms of the government have no right to detain a person without trial and take away the rights of the judiciary.

This we will oppose and we will come in droves to demonstrate. Do you hear us clear, Zahid?

Apapunboleh: We are against criminals. But one should not rot in jail while the police take their own sweet time in their investigation. One is innocent until proven guilty.

ACR: Why is it so hard to understand? By all means empower the police, enhance their investigative skills and let them be better equipped. At the same time, allow the judiciary to play its role effectively and adhere to international standards of human rights.

Is this so difficult to do in this age and time? Why do the police need a period of detention without trial? What sort of investigation are they doing that leads to this?

The preamble of the ISA stated that it was an Act to curb insurgency and threats to national security. Yet it was used against politicians. We have had enough of this garbage. Umno had better up its standard of governance.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.