Posted by Unknown | Posted on 7:16 PG
Posted: 30 Jul 2013 11:04 PM PDT
PKR will strongly oppose any new version of an Emergency Ordinance (EO) because the BN has previously used such legislation to stifle political dissent rather than to fight crime.
Referring to reports of a new preventive law to tackle crime, PKR vice-president N Surendran said today that such a law would pose “grave danger to the civil and political rights of all Malaysians”.
The law is reportedly being drafted by a committee headed by Minister Idris Jala, and is due to be tabled in Parliament in September.
“We will fight such laws at every stage of its tabling in the Dewan Rakyat, we will never surrender the fundamental rights of the rakyat," Surendran said in a statement.
"We call upon the prime minister to drop the intention of tabling such laws, and instead focus upon creating a better-trained and more efficient police force."
Surendran noted that, on one occasion in July 2011, the EO had been "misused" to arrest six PSM activists including a member of parliament.
“The police must also be freed from unnecessary political tasks on behalf of the BN, such as spying on and prosecuting opposition and civil society leaders and activists," he said.
"Using the police for these unconstitutional political tasks is a serious waste of resources and demoralises the police force."
Human rights activists and lawyers have also argued against a return to the EO era.
At a Proham forum, it was argued that existing laws, like the amended Prevention of Crime Act 1959, provide sufficient powers for the police to deal with serious crime.
Following a series of violent crimes, premier Najib Abdul Razak has mooted an EO-type law, in modified form, to enable the police to cope with such incidents.
The EO, which allowed the police to detain a suspect for two months without trial, was originally designed to enforce order after the May 13,1969 riots. It was abolished in 2011 and over 2,000 detainees were freed last year.
Posted: 30 Jul 2013 09:23 AM PDT
In what looked more like a scene from “The Dictator” than real life, Egypt’s leading general and de-facto head of state Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi addressed cheering crowds in his full military fatigue and Gamal Abdel Nassir sunglasses on Wednesday. He congratulated them for “making their will known” to the world on June 30th (when mass protests began) and July 3rd (the day Morsi was ousted), and declared that “the will of the people” delegitimizes the results of elections. He then called on “all noble Egyptians” to march on Friday in the millions to give him “the popular mandate to fight terrorism.”
The Tamarrod campaign enthusiastically endorsed his call on their official Facebook page, encouraging Egyptians to support the army in “the coming war against terrorism” and its “cleansing” of the country, widely understood as references to cracking down on The Muslim Brotherhood.
The head of Egypt’s security apparatus does not need a popular mandate to pursue those involved in criminal activity. However, a ruling junta in the Arab world’s most populous country concerned with its global image does need the theatrics of “popular will” to use force to wipe out an entire political movement and its supporters, one that by the most conservative estimates comprises no less than a quarter of the Egyptian people. Not only is the general fanning the already white hot flames of anti-Muslim Brotherhood fervor in Egypt, but he is exploiting it to gain political cover for mass repression and violence. In the current climate of ultra nationalism and deep polarization, sadly, many Egyptians are all too willing to provide it.
Far from eradicating terrorism, such an approach would only empower those who call for violence against the state.
Unless Egypt’s military junta decisively corrects its current course, and pursues a peaceful, inclusive and reconciliatory approach to putting Egypt back on a democratic path, it will be feeding rather than draining militants’ ideological fuel.
This is because Al Qaeda was conceived in the prisons of Egypt, contrary to conventional wisdom, not the caves of Afghanistan. Gamal Abdel Nassir’s torture chambers produced Al Qaeda’s intellectual foundation, whose original target was not the United States, but corrupt Arab governments the superpower was seen as propping up. Sayed Qutb, whose writings inspired many militant groups, including Al Qaeda, was radicalized and eventually executed in Nassir’s jail. Decades later, Ayman El Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy and chief strategist, turned to militancy in these same confines, and went on to advocate for violence as the only way to correct perceived injustice.
The Egyptian people proved him wrong in the spring of 2011. Eighteen days of mass protests accomplished what decades of militancy could not: ridding Egypt of a thirty-year dictator. The January 25th revolt was the single greatest blow to Al Qaedaism since its bastard birth in Nassir’s jail. Islamists worked with liberals and leftists to rid their nation of a common enemy. When Iran’s supreme leader congratulated Egypt on its “Islamic Revolution”, it was the Muslim Brotherhood that corrected him. “This was an Egyptian People’s Revolution,” the Islamists declared. Former militants formed political parties, not terrorism cells, working within the system rather than seeking to destroy it. According to years of Gallup nationally representative surveys, while the majority of Egyptians (60 percent) said that “oppressed people can improve their situation through peaceful means alone” before the revolution, this number rose to 79 percent after it successfully ousted Hosni Mubarak, and to 85 percent after the first parliamentary elections. The January 25th revolution was a victory for not only “people power” but for peaceful means of change.
The threat to extremist ideology was apparently so acute that Ayman El Zawahri went out of his way in February 2011 to put out a statement responding to the Egyptian uprising, where he denounced democracy as unIslamic. It seemed that Egypt, the birthplace of Al Qaeda, would also be the land of its celebrated death.
After the military’s mass arrests and violent crackdown on supporters of the former president in the past weeks however, it might be El Zawahri who is celebrating.
In the early morning on Monday, July 8th, several days after the fall of Morsi, the military opened fire on a pro-Morsi sit in at the Republican guard leaving 51 dead, one soldier and 50 Morsi supporters. A grainy video of the incident shows people running in a panic as soldiers blast the crowd with gunshots. Human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as Western media outlets, including theNew York Times, the Wall Street Journal and Foreign Policy Magazine, reported the military used excessive force. Within hours, the military issued a statement saying it acted in self-defense. In response to the incident the armed forces made a number of arrests — not of officers allegedly responsible for the incident as a nod to accountability and reconciliation — but of senior Brotherhood leaders, including the Supreme guide Mohammad Badie, on charges that they incited their own massacre.
With few exceptions, Egypt’s so-called “liberals” hardly object. Many formally anti-military activists and human rights NGO leaders, who have themselves witnessed violence against protesters at the hands of Egypt’s security apparatus, now fiercely defend the military, scorning dissidents in their ranks. With eerie irony, Tamarrod spokesman has stated that, “Nassir’s Egypt will not tolerate the continuation of Morsi’s Egypt” apparently glorifying a time in the country’s history when it was anything but a democracy.
If democracy were established, Egypt could still be Al Qaeda's ideological death bed. But if the military pursues its current path, the country also has the potential to become the site of the network’s philosophical second coming. This risk was made clear in a social media exchange I had with a prominent Egyptian blogger named Ali shortly after the Republican guard shooting.
I might give Egypt's ruling generals, and their advisors in Washington and Brussels, similar advice: Ayman El Zawahri and those who agree with him wish for nothing more than a pretense for violence. Don't give it to them.
 The same verse goes to say, “But if you are patient – it is better for those who are patient.” It is understood to allow and limit Muslims to “proportional retaliation” in war, as opposed to massive or punishing retaliation, while encouraging forgiveness.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Anwar Ibrahim |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|