Q&A: I don't need sympathy, I need understanding

Have Malaysians failed to understand Syed Hamid Albar? You be the judge in this final of a three-part Malaysiakini interview with the home minister.


Malaysiakini: Regarding Utusan Malaysia, where there has been a clamouring of voices for action to be taken against the daily for some articles that have been published – the 'cerpen' (short story) and the poem. What is your reaction to that?

Syed Hamid Albar: I think there is a tendency, amongst press people anyway… when we say ‘you have done something wrong’, they like to take a tit-for-tat – a life for a life and a tooth for a tooth – but I don’t think that should be the attitude.

You have to look at what we are today - much of it is the acting and reacting, nothing germinates by itself. So we have to look at our inner self.

Just so you know, we are now not pro-active – where is our contribution in talking about Malaysia as Malaysian? We are all now wearing our ethnic glasses, religious glasses. Our spectacles are full of colours...

This is not a country where there is a homogeneous society. There is no hegemony (in Malaysia) in terms of one ethnic group can dominate.

We have got a multiple of ethnicities and religions in this country and (we) have been separated for a long time, we can’t change things overnight.

But we have succeeded, as our democracy matures and as people get more and more affluent, they are trying to cut across the differences of racial and religious lines.

I think here is where the media must play a part. If a person is arrested, (it is) not because of that person is Chinese, or Indian or Malay. It is because that person must have committed something wrong against the law.

Yes, but people ask what wrong has (MP for Seputeh) Teresa Kok committed? How do you justify that? And the fact that Utusan is playing this up, people are asking why there is this double standard – you take action against Sarawak Tribune and Sin Chew Daily but not Utusan?

No, Utusan has also been given warning. I think that in the case of Sin Chew, or in case of Teresa Kok, the police are exercising their rights under the law.

You see the problem is every time we discuss about ISA (Internal Security Act), straightaway there is a flicker of negative light as if the ISA is all about preventative detention, which is not quite true.

Part of the success of the police is we are able to talk like this and we are able to move without fear for our lives. (This) is part of the unseen work of the police. Prevention is not something that is always visible.

Under Section 73 of ISA, the police do not have to consult me.

But are you saying that the police have never consulted you regarding the arrests?

It is their right.

But have they consulted you?

Public personalities, they will let me know subsequently – (but) when they want to arrest, I don’t know (who they are).

When they have arrested, they let me know so that (I have the information) if I’m asked questions – people love to ask ministers questions ... so the minister must be a policeman, a public prosecutor and judge, and it is not easy.

The police made their assessments on what they consider sensitive to the public - that there is tension and if tension exists, how to stifle that tension.

So I think the best is to do what is under Section 73 of the ISA, which is actually a remand situation that allows the police to quietly bring the person and investigate the whole scene until they are satisfied, (and) the person is released.

In her (Kok) case, she was allowed to see her family, she was allowed to see her lawyers and even her friends came to see her.

But I cannot tell the police - and I don’t think anybody should tell the police - how they should carry out their job unless you have got mala fide (bad faith) or if you got clear reason to show that the police have acted in a way that is unjust.

The police must be allowed to carry out their work otherwise they cannot function, and when it comes to the operational of police work, I don’t interfere.

Yes, but the public is getting more matured now, they are able to see and understand. For you to say that for instance, the Sin Chew journalist (Tan Hoon Cheng) was taken for her own protection, people would laugh at that.

I think I would laugh at it, but I will tell you that it was not the core and fundamental reason (for her arrest).

That was the reason that was highlighted by the media. If you listen to what I said – there is a threat and the police perception of this threat to public order, to security. That is the reason this person was (arrested under ISA).

Maybe they want to bring her in to ensure that nothing happens to her. I mean this is not the (only) reason – surely you are matured enough to know that this is not the reason.

A person like me would not use an irrational thing (like this) but I was hit very badly on this thing to say that ‘Oh, it is for her protection’ when it was never the core or the fundamental issue of her arrest.

The issue of the arrest is that there is a question of public order and there is a question of security.

Things were getting very tense, everybody was talking about it and it was becoming highly politicised, and the polemic was not productive and it was not contributing (to the situation).

Even the chief of the armed forces came up with a statement. So when the police see all these things – (and) they are the group responsible for law and order – how are they suppose to react?

And when the people tell them how they should work and who they should arrest, you are teaching the police how to do their work.

If I was in the process of investigation, something that I consider as a national security threat or possible law-and-order question, then definitely I would look at the originator.

But in this particular case, I was not consulted on who they want to arrest because that is within their (police) area. Then they tell me they have arrested these people.

If you listen to all my statements, I said there is a threat to public order (and) there is a threat to security – they (the police) have a maximum of 60 days to investigate.

If we all want to hold (them) after then (60 days), only then I sign the preventive detention order.

But in this case, the problem is that the ISA has been abused by the police. In the arrest of both Teresa Kok and the journalist, especially the journalist, you arrest her for prevention of some issues and then you release her 24 hours later. What is the need to be arrested under ISA, if you are going to detain her for 24 hours?

If we take in for one week, then you will say why hold for one week, like Teresa, whom the police had held for seven days.

How do I tell you not write this way, how should I tell the police how they should (perform)?

They must have their own judgement and what is the best way of executing their duties and functions? And I think that is reasonable for them and I think once they have found there is nothing for them, then they release (the detainees).

The girl (Sin Chew journalist) cooperated and made things easier for her... I am sure the police know that they are going to be publicly ridiculed. I myself get all sorts of public ridicule but we are used to it.

If we are not willing to take risk for the sake of the country, (and) we are not doing this for our own personal pleasure, please remember that.

As I said, justice and fairness is a question of conscience whether we are doing the right thing. Of course, people will say, ‘why don’t you just call the person to cooperate’...

If the police had come to you to get permission, would you have given the ‘go-ahead’?

Don’t ask me to speculate and all. But what I can tell you is that when it comes to the (two-year) detention order, I am very particular about processes.

I ask a lot of questions because I feel that when it is done that way, I must make sure that there is no abuse, (the police) are acting within the law, (or) because I dislike the person – I would not do that.

My officers know I am very particular and if I don’t have to do it under that particular act, I would not do it.

But I think many people tend to forget that the ISA does not prevent – under Section 73 or under Section 8 – one from going to court.

I think we have gone to court on this Hindraf Five matter, on all kinds of issues. He (P Uthayakumar, Hindu Rights Action Force leader) goes to the court.

But you can only go to court on procedural matter.

I think (even) on procedure, there are quite a number of cases where they (the court) released them. Whatever it is, there is that process of habeas corpus, and it is for the person to be brought (to court) and for the person to be released.

This is in order to ensure that the law is adhered to, and this is in accordance to the constitutional rights within the Malaysian constitution.

And the other part of it is, after three months a person has been arrested, the Advisory Council sits and will weigh – and that one the minister cannot interfere with – to see whether the person should be held further within the two years.

If the Advisory Council advises that the person should not be held as there are no grounds, then the person would be released. After six months, the cases are reviewed (again).

I would not say that ISA is a popular Act, (and) I would not say that the majority do not like ISA.

I can tell you that there are differences of views and I can tell that majority of people today feels that because of existence of preventive laws (we have peace). Of course, among the intellectuals, the media and the academicians, the Act is outdated.

But it was also disagreed by your cabinet colleagues as well.

It is the same; my cabinet colleagues are also intellectuals. But you must remember that if I work with you in Malaysiakini, for example, I cannot have my own philosophy and do what I like.

No, we do allow our journalists to express their views.

No, you allow differences but you don’t allow people who do not subscribe to your ideology or to your belief, or to go around to another press like Malaysia Today to keep on criticise you.

So once you join the cabinet, there are a lot of sacrifices you have to do.

One is that you must understand that you have got a collective responsibility and the idea of collective responsibility is for us to deliberate on how we achieve a collective wisdom.

There are so many things that I know that I disagree.

What is your personal position on ISA then?

Personally, I think I will be very reluctant unless there are controls, checks and measures. We believe at present there are controls, checks and measures and that is the government’s position.

Any human-made law is not cast in stone – everything is subject to the evolution process.

So when you debate about ISA, there will be pros and there will be cons… whether it is the opposition or whether it is the government.

I don’t remember anytime when Anwar (Ibrahim) was in our government that he ever objected to ISA. I don’t remember him saying it. He may disagree with it, (but) he has never expressed in order to advocate at that time for its abolition.

But I have, as a minister of law, I have asked for it to be reviewed and to be looked at.

What aspects?

Some areas of checks and balance.

But then how come you have not taken action against Ahmad Ismail?

The party has taken action against Ahmad Ismail and now he is being investigated under the Sedition Act…

I can tell you a hundred and one things … if I want to point out the bad things about what the media has done, but where does it lead me? At the end of the day, we need to work together in order to build something that is Malaysian...

Don’t ask why this person is not arrested and why that person is. That sort of thing, the police has got their own reasons...

The Malays feel that they are being knocked down on all fronts and yet they are the poorest and yet they are least represented in certain areas.

Let us look at the problems of Malaysians building a Malaysian nation. Yes, there are certain things that you disagree and you are entitled to that because that is part of our democratic process.

We sympathise with you – because you said that the police do not inform you but the prime minister said that the home minister knows about the matter.

No, don’t sympathise for me... I think when you read in the newspapers about the detention, there was confusion whether it was detention of Section 73 until I explained it.

Under Section 73, it is the police’s discretion. You don’t have to sympathise with me. I am doing my job. I am subjected to criticism, I do not need sympathy. I need a lot of understanding from people, that’s all.

Part 2
Syed Hamid defends Hindraf ban
Q&A: Home ministers 'burn' themselves for society

Part 3
Syed Hamid: Utusan 'given warning'
Q&A: I don't need sympathy, I need understanding