My two-cents worth is that the new National Security Council (NSC) Bill is not about security but about ensuring the continuity of the present government.

The government has always gone into every general election with certainty of victory, of two-thirds victory at that.

Songs of victory have been composed before the elections, to be aired immediately upon announcement of the results.

This game has changed beginning with the 2008 elections when the BN government for the first time in history lost its two-thirds majority.

The 2013 elections did not make matters any better. In fact the overall results were worse as the government had now lost the popular vote.

Thus things look very bleak for the next election. Although the Election Commission has done its work in Sarawak of ensuring the results will favour the ruling party, as was admitted by a former chairperson of the commission, and will soon be doing the same in Sabah, the nagging fear of unpredictability of the next election results is the real fear that the government is trying to grapple with.

It is significant to note that the NSC Bill gives the prime minister “absolute power to declare any area a security area after which all laws that protect ordinary citizens will be suspended” as said by Ambiga Sreenevasan, president of the National Human Rights Society (Hakam).

The powers include the power to declare any area as a security area if the authorities are convinced that there is the likelihood of harm to people, territories, key infrastructure and the economy.

A further significant fact is that the bill is “extremely vague, arbitrary and wide and further obliges secrecy - a surefire recipe for abuse of power and human rights”.

It would be open to the whims and fancies of the authorities to declare anything as being harmful to people, the territories, key infrastructures and the economy. We have seen how questioning the 1MDB issue has been labelled as efforts to destabilise the economy and the government.

Any of the racist/extremist incidents like throwing of animal heads and Molotov cocktails into houses of worship, the sign of the cross incidents, etc., could be labeled as being harmful to people to legitimise using the Act “to declare any area a security area after which all laws that protect ordinary citizens will be suspended”.

Whose will be the last word on what constitutes a happening that could be labelled as likely to cause harm to people, territories, key infrastructure and the economy? Can it be that of the prime minister who will directly benefit from such a labelling of any happening as Parliament could be suspended and he will continue in his post without the need to face an election?

If Umno elections can be postponed, so could Parliamentary elections be suspended if there was another incident like some of those that have taken place before, and there was a vague law that could be interpreted to suit the occasion or need. The NSC Bill seems designed for such a purpose for there are existing laws that can deal with national security matters.

My hunch therefore is that the Act is being tabled to prepare for the possible necessity to suspend Parliament to ensure the ‘continuity’ of the government. It’s only a hunch and I hope I am wrong.