Showing posts with label New Bills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Bills. Show all posts

Thursday, April 19, 2012

新瓶旧酒抑或新酒旧瓶?

马来西亚国会于4月17日通过废除内部安全法令(ISA),但却也提前几天通过新法令“2012年国家安全罪行法案(特别措施)取代。那些质疑者皆形容新法令或许是“新瓶旧酒”。而无论纸媒或网媒在撰写新闻时也用相同的形容词。

“新瓶旧酒”用得贴切吗?首先让我讲述这形容词的背景来源。来源出自圣经,耶稣当时和犹太人的一个党派法利赛人士辩论,耶稣说:“没有人会把新酒装在旧皮袋里,如果这样,皮袋就会胀破,酒就漏出来,皮袋也损坏了。”

古代人,包括犹太人和中国人,兽皮是其中一种装液体的容器。新酒必须装在新皮袋里,不过酒天天在皮袋内发酵,皮袋渐渐就膨胀至极限,或变成脆弱,若再用来装新酒的话,就会被胀破。耶稣要传达的意思是新酒必须装在新皮袋里,他本人就是新酒(新思维),而法利赛人是旧皮袋(旧思维),除非法利赛人放弃他们的旧思维,改变成新思维,否则的话他们是不能容纳他的。

对比之下,法令的内容是酒,而它的名称是皮袋(包装),因为酒是主角,而名称是配角。即说,新法令的内容虽然是新的,但若还是使用残旧的包装的话,更美的名肯定该包装很快就被胀破。即说还是会受到人民的批评,久而久之就不堪一击。内安法令不是“很美丽”的包装名称吗?所谓“内部安全”,美其名也不过是被利用为政治打压的恶法吗?所以,把它废除是合时宜的。

现在使用皮袋的情况已经不普遍了,除了草原牧民和医疗用途外,各种物质瓶子取代了皮袋。批评者认为政府不会轻易放弃压制政敌法令的,新法令或许会维持内安法令的不利内容的,或许甚至比它更严厉的。

国家安全罪行法案允许警方无须根据正常的刑事程序或证据法令查案,可以没审判先扣留,至多28天。不过不但曾经被扣留的人士,律师公会以及许多非政府组织批评,不少普罗百姓也不赞成。他们质疑扣留28天释放后,不保障他们不会重新被扣留。有识之士都呼吁政府完全废除内安法令,不要任何类似的新法令取代,以证明政府的诚心。

那么,批评者的质疑,把政府这般的“改革”形容为“新瓶旧酒”,形容得并不正确。因为新瓶的确有能力装旧酒,而酒是好的。(也有人形容为“毒酒新瓶“,那还可以接受!)况且酒越陈(旧)越好。反而他们若用相反的形容词更贴切,即是“新酒旧瓶”。而我本人认为比“新酒旧瓶”更贴切的是“换汤不换药”。

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Security Bill threatens basic liberties — Human Rights Watch

April 12, 2012

APRIL 12 — On April 10, the government submitted the Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012 to parliament, where quick ratification is expected.

The administration of Prime Minister Najib Razak touted the bill as a significant improvement over the ISA because it reduces the period of detention without judicial review from 60 to 28 days and only for an “active investigation”. It also prohibits arrest solely on the basis of “political belief or political activity”.

“The Malaysian government is putting to rest the long-derided ISA, but it is also setting the stage for future abuses,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “While the new law has improvements, the authorities still hold too much power to detain people on broad grounds, for too long, and without judicial oversight.”

Provisions of the Security Offences Bill will facilitate violations of fundamental human rights, Human Rights Watch said. Permitting detention for 28 days without being brought before a judge violates international standards for prompt judicial review. The bill also allows delays of 48 hours before the suspect has access to a lawyer, which encourages abusive interrogations. And the bill defines “political activity” too narrowly, leaving room for arrests for other forms of peaceful political activity.

Other provisions of the Security Offences Bill raise due process concerns for those suspected of committing security offences, Human Rights Watch said. The proposed law would allow police to make an arrest without a warrant if the officer merely “has reason to believe” that the person may be involved in security offences, many of which are vaguely defined.

It would give the police broad powers to conduct searches and intercept communications without judicial warrant. And it would permit the police unilaterally to impose electronic monitoring devices on individuals released from detention, a serious infringement of personal liberty.

“There are not nearly enough civil liberties protections written into this law,” Robertson said.

Those charged with security offences would face serious infringements of their basic rights under the proposed law, Human Rights Watch said. The bill contains a blanket provision denying bail to people charged with security offences. The identity of certain prosecution witnesses could be kept from defendants and their attorneys, depriving them their right to cross-examine the witnesses against them.

The law would also permit the use in court of any information obtained in raids and investigations, as well as all intercepted communications — which presumably would allow the admission of evidence obtained unlawfully. Finally, the law would permit a court to order the continued detention of an acquitted defendant pending the exhaustion of all prosecution appeals, thus allowing the authorities to keep a person who has been found not guilty behind bars for years.

Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the proposed law was drafted by the government without meaningful consultation with Malaysian civil society, including the Bar Council and other groups that seek to promote respect for human rights.

“The Security Offences Bill sets the stage for trials with secret witnesses, unlawfully obtained evidence, and continued detention of those found not guilty,” Robertson said. “The government should go back to the drawing board and draft a law with input from civil society that will ensure the protection of basic rights.” — aliran.com

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/security-bill-threatens-basic-liberties-human-rights-watch/