Jilid I Hari Jumaat Bil. 88 19hb Disember, 1975

PENYATA RASMI PARLIMEN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

DEW AN RAKYAT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PARLIMEN KEEMPAT Fourth Parliament PENGGAL PERTAMA First Session

KANDUNGANNYA

PENGUMUMAN YANG DI-PERTUA: Bahasa Malaysia sebagai Bahasa Rasmi Majlis [Ruangan 9773]

JAWAPAN-JAWAPAN MULUT BAGI PERTANYAAN-PERTANYAAN [Ruangan 9774]

USUL: Peraturan-peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes Keselamatan), 1975 [Ruangan 9776] MALAYSIA DEWAN RAKYAT YANG KEEMPAT Penyata Rasmi Parlimen PENGGAL YANG PERTAMA

Hari Jumaat, 19hb Disember, 1975

Mesyuarat dimulakan pada pukul 2.30 petang

YANG HADIR

Yang Berhormat Tuan Yang di-Pertua, TAN SRI HAJI NIK AHMED KAMIL, D.K., P.M.N., S.P.M.K., S.J.M.K. Yang Amat Berhormat Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Menteri Kewangan dan Menteri Penyelarasan Perbadanan Awam, DATUK HUSSEIN BIN DATUK ONN, S.P.MJ., S.I.M.P., P.I.S. (Sri Gading). Yang Berhormat Menteri Pertanian dan Pembangunan Luar Bandar, TUAN ABDUL GHAFAR BIN BABA (Alor Gajah). „ Menteri Perhubungan, TAN SRI V. MANICKAVASAGAM, P.M.N., S.P.M.S., J.M.N., P.J.K. (Pelabuhan Kelang). „ Menteri Kerajaan Tempatan dan Alam Sekitar, TAN SRI ONG KEE HUI, P.M.N., P.N.B.S. (Bandar Kuching). Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, TAN SRI HAJI MUHAMMAD GHAZALI BIN SHAFIE, P.M.N., D.I.M.P., P.D.K., S.I.M.P. (Lipis). „ Menteri Undang-undang dan Peguam Negara, TAN SRI ABDUL KADIR BIN YUSOF, P.M.N., S.P.D.K., S.P.MJ., P.J.K., B.C.K., A.D.K. (Tenggaroh). Menteri Kebajikan Am, PUAN HAJJAH AISHAH BINTI HAJI ABDUL GHANI, J.M.N., A.D.K. (Kuala Langat). „ Menteri Luar Negeri, Y.M. TENGKU AHMAD RITHAUDDEEN AL-HAJ BIN TENGKU ISMAIL, P.M.K., Tengku Sri Mara Raja (Kota Bharu). „ Menteri Tenaga, Teknoloji dan Penyelidikan, DATUK HAJI MOHAMED BIN YAACOB, P.G.D.K., P.M.K., S.M.T. (Tanah Merah). „ Menteri Perusahaan Utama, DATUK MUSA HITAM, S.P.M.J. (Labis). „ Timbalan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, DATUK ABDUL SAMAD BIN IDRIS, J.M.N., A.M.N., P.J.K. (Kuala Pilah). „ Timbalan Menteri Penerangan, DATUK SHARIFF AHMAD, D.I.M.P., J.M.N. (Jerantut). „ Timbalan Menteri Pertanian dan Pembangunan Luar Bandar, DATUK HAJI MUSTAPHA BIN HAJI ABDUL JABAR, D.P.M.S., J.M.N., A.M.N., J.P, (Sabak Bernam). „ Timbalan Menteri Pelajaran, TUAN CHAN SIANG SUN, J.S.M., A.M.N., P.J.K., J.P. (Bentong). „ Timbalan Menteri Kewangan, TAN SRI CHONG HON NYAN, P.S.M., J.M.N. (Batu Berendam). „ Timbalan Menteri Tanah dan Galian, DR SULAIMAN BIN HAJI DAUD (Santubong). 9763 19 DISEMBER 1975 9764

Yang Berhormat Timbalan Menteri Perusahaan Utama, TUAN PAUL LEONG KHEE SEONG (Taiping). „ Setiausaha Parlimen kepada Menteri Perhubungan, TUAN HAJI RAMLI BIN OMAR, P.M.P., K.M.N. (Bagan Serai). „ Setiausaha Parlimen kepada Menteri Buruh dan Tenaga Rakyat, TUAN S. SUBRAMANIAM (Damansara). „ TUAN HAJI NIK ABDUL AZIZ BIN NIK MAT, K.M.N., J.P. (Pengkalan Chepa). „ TUAN ABDUL JALAL BIN HAJI ABU BAKAR, A.M.N. (Batu Pahat). „ TUAN HAJI ABDUL RASHID BIN HAJI JAIS, A.D.K., A.S.D.K. (Ulu Padas). „ TUAN HAJI ABDUL WAHAB BIN YUNUS (Dungun). „ PENGHULU ABIT ANAK ANGKIN, P.P.N. (Kapit). „ TUAN ABU BAKAR BIN ARSHAD (Hilir Perak). „ TUAN HAJI AHMAD BIN HAJI ITHNIN (Jasin). „ TUAN HAJI AHMAD SHUKRI BIN HAJI ABD. SHUKOR (Padang Terap). „ TUAN AU HOW CHEONG (Telok Anson). „ TUAN AZAHARI BIN MD. TAIB, J.S.M., A.M.N., S.M.K. J.P. (Kulim Bandar Bahru). „ TUAN AZHARUL ABIDIN BIN HAJI ABDUL RAHIM (Batang Padang). „ DR CHEN MAN HIN (Seremban). „ TUAN CHI AN HENG KAI (Batu Gajah). „ TUAN CHIENG TIONG KAI alias CHIENG SIE LUNG (Sarikei). „ TUAN CHIN HON NGIAN (Rengam). „ TUAN RICHARD DAMPENG ANAK LAKI (Serian). „ TUAN EDWIN ANAK TANGKUN, A.B.S. (Batang Lupar). „ TUAN EMBONG BIN YAHYA, A.M.N. (Ledang). „ TUAN FARN SEONG THAN (Sungai Besi). „ DATIN HAJJAH FATIMAH BINTI HAJI ABD. MAJID, J.M.N., P.I.S. (Semerah). TUAN HAJI HADADAK BIN HAJI D. PASAUK (Simunjan). „ TUAN HASHIM BIN GHAZALI (Matang). DATUK NIK HASSAN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN, S.P.M.T., P.S.D., K.M.N. (Kuala Nerus). TUAN SYED HASSAN BIN SYED MOHAMED, P.J.K. (Arau). „ TUAN HISHAMUDDIN BIN HAJI YAHAYA (Maran). „ TUAN HAJI JAMIL BIN ISHAK, P.J.K. (Tanjong Karang). „ TUAN JAWAN ANAK EMPALING (Rajang). „ TUAN JONATHAN NARWIN ANAK JINGGONG (Lubok Antu). „ TUAN EDMUND LANGGU ANAK SAGA, P.B.S. (Saratok). „ TUAN LATIP BIN HAJI DRIS (Mukah). „ TUAN LEE LAM THYE (Kuala Lumpur Bandar). TUAN LEO MOGGIE ANAK IROKE (Kanowit). „ TUAN LIBEN ANAK KATO alias WAIRY LEBEN ANAK KATO (Betong). „ TUAN LIM KIAM HOON alias LIM AH YING (Padang Serai). TUAN LIM KIT SIANG (Kota Melaka). DATUK LIM PUI HO, P.G.D.K., J.P., B.K. (Sandakan). 9765 19 DISEMBER 1975 9766

Yang Berhormat DR LING LIONG SIK (Mata Kuching). „ TUAN LOH FOOK YEN (Kluang). „ TUAN LUKMAN BIN ABDUL KADIR (Ulu Nerus). DATUK ALBERT MAH, D.M.P.N., K.M.N., P.J.K. (Bukit Bendera). „ TUAN MOHAMED SOPIEE BIN SHEIKH IBRAHIM, J.M.N. (Kepala Batas). „ TUAN MOHD. BAKRI BIN ABDUL RAIS (Parit). TUAN HAJI MOHD. TAUFECK BIN O. K. K. HAJI ASNEH, B.S.K., B.K., P.P.M. (Hilir Padas). „ TUAN MOHD. ZAHARI BIN AWANG (Kuala Krai). „ TUAN HAJI MOHD. ZAIN BIN ABDULLAH (Bachok). „ DATUK ENGKU MUHSEIN BIN ABDUL KADIR, D.P.M.T., J.M.N., P.J.K. (Ulu Trengganu). „ RAJA NASRON BIN RAJA ISHAK, K.M.N., P.J.K. (Kuala Selangor). „ TUAN NGAN SIONG HING (Kinta). „ TENGKU NOOR ASIAH BINTI TENGKU AHMAD, A.M.N., P.B. (Tumpat). „ TUAN OH KENG SENG (Petaling). TUAN OO GIN SUN, A.M.K. (Alor Setar). „ TUAN PANG SUI CHEE alias ALEX PANG, B.K., A.D.K. (Tawau). TUAN K. PATHMANABAN, K.M.N. (Telok Kemang). TUAN RASIAH RAJASINGAM (Jelutong). „ TUAN S. SAMY VELLU, A.M.N. (Sungai Siput). „ TUAN SANUSI BIN JUNID (Jerai). TUAN SHAARI BIN JUSOH, P.P.N. (Kangar). „ DATUK HAJI SHAFIE BIN ABDULLAH, P.G.D.K., A.M.N., B.C.K., P.B.S., J.P. (Baling). „ TUAN SHAMSUDDIN BIN DIN, P.P.N. (Grik). „ TUAN SHAMSURI BIN MD. SALEH, A.M.N., J.P. (Balik Pulau). TUAN SIBAT ANAK TAGONG alias SIBUT MIYUT ANAK TAGONG (Ulu Rajang). „ TUAN THOMAS SALANG SIDEN (Julau). „ TUAN HAJI SUHAIMI BIN DATUK HAJI KAMARUDDIN, A.M.N. (Sepang). TUAN SULAIMAN BIN HAJI TAIB, A.M.P. (Parit Buntar). „ TUAN SU LIANG YU (Beruas). „ DR TAN CHEE KHOON (Kepong). TUAN TAN CHENG BEE, A.M.N., J.P. (Bukit Mertajam). TUAN JAMES STEPHEN TIBOK, A.D.K. (Penampang). „ TENGKU ZAID AL-HAJ BIN TENGKU AHMAD, D.P.M.K., J.M.K., S.M.K. (Pasir Mas). „ WAN ZAINAB BINTI M. A. BAKAR, A.M.N., P.J.K. (Sungai Petani). „ TUAN HAJI ZAKARIA BIN ISMAIL, P.B. (Rantau Panjang). YANG TIDAK HADIR Yang Amat Berhormat Perdana Menteri dan Menteri Pertahanan, TUN HAJI ABDUL RAZAK BIN DATUK HUSSEIN, S.M.N., K.O.M. (Pekan). Yang Berhormat Menteri Buruh dan Tenaga Rakyat, DATUK LEE SAN CHOON, S.P.M.J., K.M.N. (Segamat). 9767 19 DISEMBER 1975 9768

Yang Berhormat Menteri Tanah dan Galian dan Tugas-tugas Khas, DATUK HAJI MOHAMED ASRI BIN HAJI MUDA, S.P.R., S.P.M.K., S.P.D.K., Datuk Sri Paduka Raja (Nilam Puri). „ Menteri Perdagangan dan Perindastrian, DATUK HAJI HAMZAH BIN DATUK ABU SAMAH, D.S.R., S.M.K., S.I.M.P. (Temerloh). „ Menteri Kerja Raya dan Pengangkutan, DATUK HAJI ABDUL GHANI GILONG, P.D.K., J.P. (Kinabalu). „ Menteri Kesihatan, TAN SRI LEE SIOK YEW, P.M.N., A.M.N., P.J.K. (Uiu Langat). „ Menteri Penerangan dan Tugas-tugas Khas dan Perancangan Am dan Penyelidikan Sosio-Ekonomi, DATUK AMAR HAJI ABDUL TAIB BIN MAHMUD, P.G.D.K. (Samarahan). Menteri Kebudayaan, Belia dan Sukan, DATUK ALI BIN HAJI AHMAD, S.P.K.J., S.M.J. (Pontian). „ Menteri Perumahan dan Kampung-kampung Baru, TUAN MICHAEL CHEN WING SUM (Ulu Selangor). „ Menteri Pelajaran, DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD (Kubang Pasu). „ Timbalan Menteri Perhubungan, DATUK HAJI WAN ABDUL KADIR BIN ISMAIL, D.P.M.T., P.P.T. (Kemaman). „ Timbalan Menteri Penyelarasan Perbadanan Awam, DATUK MOHAMED BIN RAHMAT, D.P.M.J., K.M.N. (Pulai). „ Timbalan Menteri Jabatan Perdana Menteri, DATUK SRI HAJI KAMARUDDIN BIN HAJI MAT ISA, S.P.M.P., K.M.N., J.P. (Larut). „ Timbalan Menteri Buruh dan Tenaga Rakyat, TUAN HAJI HASSAN ADLI BIN HAJI ARSHAD (Bagan Datok). „ Timbalan Menteri Jabatan Perdana Menteri, DATUK ABDULLAH AHMAD, S.J.M.K., D.P.M.K., P.N.B.S., J.M.K., A.D.K. (Machang). „ Timbalan Menteri Pertanian dan Pembangunan Luar Bandar, TUAN MOKHTAR BIN HAJI HASHIM (Tampin). Timbalan Menteri Kesihatan, TUAN ABU BAKAR BIN UMAR, S.D.K. (Kota Setar). „ Timbalan Menteri Kerja Raya dan Pengangkutan, TUAN RICHARD HO UNG HUN (Lumut). „ Setiausaha Parlimen kepada Perdana Menteri, TUAN ABDULLAH BIN MAJID, K.M.N. (Raub). „ Setiausaha Parlimen kepada Menteri Perdagangan dan Perindastrian, TUAN MUSTAPHA BIN ALI (Kuala Trengganu). „ Setiausaha Parlimen kepada Perdana Menteri, DR GOH CHENG TEIK (Nibong Tebal). „ Setiausaha Parlimen kepada Menteri Tenaga, Teknoloji dan Penyelidikan, DR NEO YEE PAN (Muar). „ Setiausaha Parlimen kepada Menteri Perumahan dan Kampung-kampung Baru, TUAN MOHD. ALI BIN M. SHARIF (Kuantan). „ Setiausaha Parlimen kepada Menteri Kebudayaan, Belia dan Sukan, TUAN RAIS BIN YATIM (Jelebu). „ Tuan (Timbalan) Yang di-Pertua, TAN SRI SYED NASIR BIN ISMAIL, P.M.N., D.P.M.J., D.P.M.P., J.M.N.,P.I.S. (Pagoh). „ TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ BIN YEOP, P.S.M. (Padang Rengas). 9769 19 DISEMBER 1975 9770

Yang Berhormat DATUK PATINGGI HAJI ABDUL-RAHMAN BIN YA'KUB, D.P., P.N.B.S., S.I.M.P. (Payang). „ PENGIRAN AHMAD BIN PENGIRAN INDAR, A.S.D.K., A.D.K. (Kinabatangan). „ TUAN AJAD BIN O. T. OYUNG, A.D.K. (Labuk Sugut). TUAN ARIFFIN BIN HAJI DAUD (Permatang Pauh). „ TUAN BUJA BIN GUMBILAI, A.S.D.K. (Tuaran). PUAN CHOW POH KHENG (Selayang). „ TUAN STEPHEN ROBERT EVANS (Keningau). „ TUAN FAN YEW TENG (Menglembu). „ DR HEE TIEN LAI alias HEE TEN LAI, A.M.N., P.I.S. (Ayer Hitam). TAN SRI SYED JA'AFAR ALBAR, P.M.N.,D.P.M.J. (Panti). „ TUAN JA'AFAR BIN HAMZAH, P.I.S. (Johor Bahru). „ TUAN LEE BOON PENG, A.M.N., J.P., P.J.K. (Mantin).

w TUAN LEW SIP HON, (Shah Alam). TUAN LIM CHO HOCK (Ipoh). DR LIM CHONG EU (Tanjong). „ DATUK PETER LO SU YIN, P.G.D.K. (Gaya). „ TUAN LUHAT WAN (Baram). „ TUAN HAJI MADINA BIN UNGGUT, P.P.N. (Bandau). „ TUAN MAK HON KAM, A.M.P. (Tanjong Malim). „ TUAN HAJI MOHAMED KHIR JOHARI (Kuala Muda). TAN SRI HAJI MOHAMED SAID BIN KERUAK, P.M.N., S.P.D.K. (Kota Belud). „ TUAN MOHD. IDRIS BIN HAJI IBRAHIM (Setapak). „ TUAN MOHD. SALLEH BIN DATUK PANGLIMA ABDULLAH (Silam). „ TUN DATU HAJI MUSTAPHA BIN DATU HARUN, S.M.N., S.P.D.K., S.I.M.P., P.N.B.S., S.P.M.J., S.P.M.P., S.P.C.M., K.C.R.L. (Marudu). DATUK SYED NAHAR BIN TUN SYED SHEH SHAHABUDDIN, D.P.M.K., K.M.N. (Jerlun-Langkawi). „ TOH PUAN OON ZARIAH BINTI ABU BAKAR, A.M.N., A.M.P., P.J.K. (Kuala Kangsar). „ TUAN PATRICK ANEK UREN (Bau-Lundu). „ TUAN RACHA UMONG, P.B.S. (Limbang-Lawas). TENGKU TAN SRI RAZALEIGH BIN TENGKU MOHD. HAMZAH, P.S.M., S.P.M.K. (Ulu Kelantan). „ DATUK SENU BIN ABDUL RAHMAN (Kuala Kedah). „ WAN SULAIMAN BIN HAJI IBRAHIM, S.M.K. (Pasir Puteh). „ PENGIRAN TAHIR BIN PENGIRAN PATERA, A.D.K. (Kimanis). „ TUAN TING LING KIEW (Bintulu). „ TUAN WEE HO SOON (Bandar Sibu). „ TUAN YANG SIEW SIANG, P.B.S. (Miri-Subis). „ DATUK STEPHEN YONG KUET TZE, P.N.B.S. (Padawan). „ TUAN HAJI YUSOF RAWA alias HAJI YUSOF BIN HAJI ABDULLAH, J.P. (Ulu Muda). „ TUAN ZAKARIA BIN HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN (Besut). 9771 19 DISEMBER 1975 9772

DEWAN RAKYAT

PEGAWAI-PEGAWAI KANAN Setiausaha Dewan Rakyat: Datuk Azizul Rahman bin Abdul Aziz. Timbalan Setiausaha: Haji A. Hasmuni bin Haji Hussein. Penolong Setiausaha: Mohd. Salleh bin Abu Bakar. Penterjemah Melayu Kanan/Pemangku Penolong Setiausaha: Ghazali bin Haji Abd. Hamid.

BAHAGIAN PENYATA RASMI PARLIMEN Penyunting: Yahya Manap. Penolong Penyunting: P, B. Menon. Penolong Penyunting: Osman bin Sidik. Pemberita-pemberita: N. Ramaswamy. Louis Yeoh Sim Ngoh. Abdul Rahman bin Haji Abu Samah. Rani bin Rahim. Suhor bin Husin. Amran bin Ahmad. Mohd. Saleh bin Mohd. Yusof. Margaret Chye Kim Lian. Quah Mei Lan. Puan Kong Yooi Thong. Juliah binti Awam. Supiah binti Dewak. Ismail bin Hassan.

BENTARA MESYUARAT Mejar (B) Musa bin Alang Ahmad 9773 19 DISEMBER 1975 9774 DOA Yang di-Pertua akan membenarkan sese- orang Ahli Yang Berhormat menggunakan bahasa Inggeris hanya dalam perkara-perkara (Tuan Yang di-Pertua mempengerusikan yang khas sahaja yang mana pada tim- Mesyuarat) bangan Yang di-Pertua ada baiknya kerana sebab-sebab yang tertentu diberi kebenaran. PENGUMUMAN YANG Saya tidak tahulah sejauh manakah Ahli- DIPERTUA ahli Yang Berhormat menyemak Penyata Rasmi Parlimen dari semasa ke semasa. BAHASA MALAYSIA SEBAGAI Oleh sebab tidak kesemuanya Ahli Yang BAHASA RASMI MAJLIS Berhormat Dewan ini ada hadhir hari ini, saya minta Setiausaha Dewan Rakyat me- Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Ahli-ahli Yang narikan perhatian semua Ahli Yang Ber- Berhormat, Dewan Rakyat kita telah ber- hormat Dewan dengan menghantarkan satu sidang dari semasa ke semasa hampir-hampir salinan pengumuman ini kepada tiap-tiap sudah lapan belas tahun. seorang Ahli Yang Berhormat. Peraturan Majlis Mesyuarat Dewan Rakyat Saya berharap Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat memperuntukkan bahawa: akan terima baik pengumuman ini. Bahasa rasmi Majlis ialah Bahasa Malay- Saya menyampaikan keputusan ini seka- sia, tetapi Tuan Yang di-Pertua boleh rang supaya tidaklah dianggap saya membuat membenarkan penggunaan bahasa Ing- keputusan itu dengan tergesa-gesa. (Tepuk) geris". Pada masa-masa yang lepas Yang di- JAWAPAN-JAWAPAN MULUT Pertua Dewan telah menggunakan peraturan BAGI PERTANYAAN- ini dengan cukup timbang rasa "dengan PERTANYAAN liberalnya" iaitu mengizinkan seseorang Ahli Yang Berhormat bercakap bahasa Inggeris RISDA—BANTUAN BAJA KEPADA apabila permohonan dibuat oleh Ahli-ahli PEKEBUN KECIL Yang Berhormat itu. Satu daripada tujuan- nya boleh jadi ialah kerana memberi peluang 1. Tengku Noor Asiah binti Tengku Ahmad dan galakan kepada Ahli-ahli Yang Ber- minta Menteri Perusahaan Utama menyata- hormat itu melatihkan diri berucap beransur- kan langkah-langkah yang beliau jalankan ansur dalam Bahasa Malaysia dan tidak untuk mengelakkan sebarang penyelewengan memaksakan mereka berucap seterusnya dalam memberi bantuan baja oleh Jabatan- dalam Bahasa Malaysia sahaja. jabatan di bawah Kementeriannya. Mengikut perhatian saya boleh dikatakan Timbalan Menteri Perusahaan Utama tiap-tiap seorang Ahli Yang Berhormat di (Tuan Paul Leong Khee Seong): Tuan Yang Dewan ini cukup pandai dan fasih bercakap di-Pertua, sepanjang pengetahuan saya tidak Bahasa Malaysia tetapi kadangkala ada ramai ada apa-apa penyelewengan dalam pem- juga Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat yang meminta pemberian bantuan baja sedang berlaku di izin menggunakan bahasa Inggeris tatkala kalangan Jabatan-jabatan di bawah Kemen- membuat ucapan mereka. terian saya. Apa-apa juga penyelewengan telahpun dapat didedahkan di dalam satu Saya anggap telah sampailah masanya kita sahaja badan berkanun iaitu RISDA dan ketatkan Peraturan Majlis Mesyuarat yang langkah-langkah tegas telahpun diambil bagi saya telah sebut tadi. memberhentikan keadaan ini. Langkah- langkah ini merupakan langkah-langkah pen- Oleh itu, saya suka memaklumkan bahawa tadbiran iaitu dengan jalan memperketatkan mulai daripada Persidangan Dewan Penggal kawalan supaya pasti baja-baja yang dibekal- Kedua, Parlimen Yang Keempat ini, Yang kan itu benar-benar sampai ke tangan di-Pertua tidak lagi akan membenarkan pekebun-pekebun kecil. Sekiranya terdapat dengan cara umum Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat apa-apa maklumat atau rayuan mengenai pe- mencampur-adukan bahasa Inggeris dengan nyelewengan penyiasatan segera dijalankan Bahasa Malaysia. oleh Bahagian Penilaian dan Inspectorate 9775 19 DISEMBER 1975 9776 yang telah ditubuhkan beberapa bulan dahulu BANJIR DI KUALA LUMPUR semata-mata untuk mengelakkan kejadian apa-apa juga penyelewengan yang mungkin 4. Tuan Lim Kit Siang (di bawah S.O. 24 berlaku pada keseluruhannya dalam RISDA. (2)) minta Menteri Kerajaan Tempatan dan Alam Sekitar menyatakan samada benar atau tidak suatu projek mengatasi keadaan banjir ASEAN—PENYERTAAN VIETNAM yang menelan belanja berjuta-juta ringgit SELATAN/UTARA/KHMER/LAOS sedang dirancang oleh Jabatan Parit dan 2. Tengku Noor Asiah binti Tengku Ahmad Taliair bagi mengatasi kejadian banjir yang minta Menteri Luar Negeri menyatakan ada- sering berlaku di kawasan Kuchai Lama dan kah Kerajaan bercadang hendak mengesyor- Jalan Klang Lama, Kuala Lumpur dan jika kan supaya negara-negara Vietnam Selatan benar, nyatakan, bilakah projek tersebut dan Utara, Khmer dan Laos, menyertai akan dilancar. ASEAN. Menteri Kerajaan Tempatan dan Alam Menteri Luar Negeri (Tengku Ahmad Sekitar (Tan Sri Ong Kee Hui): Tuan Yang Rithauddeen AI-Haj): Tuan Yang di- di-Pertua, jawapannya adalah sama seperti Pertua, bagi pihak Kerajaan kita sendiri ada- yang saya telah beri kepada soalan-soalan lah menjadi dasarnya untuk berbaik-baik mengenai rancangan mencegah banjir pada dengan negara-negara lain, tambahan negara- 29-10-75 kepada Ahli Yang Berhormat dari negara yang serantau dengannya. Persatuan Telok Kemang dan pada 10-12-75 kepada ASEAN juga mempunyai dasar yang selaras Yang Berhormat dari Sungai Besi sendiri. dengan dasar Kerajaan kita ini. Ahli Yang Berhormat sedia maklum iaitu di upacara Pembukaan Persidangan Menteri-menteri USUL Luar ASEAN di Kuala Lumpur dalam bulan Mei tahun ini, Yang Amat Berhormat Tun PERATURAN-PERATURAN PERLU Perdana Menteri antara Iain-lain telah menya- (KES-KES KESELAMATAN), 1975 takan dalam ucapannya bahawa dengan Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Ahli-ahli Yang Ber- tamatnya peperangan di Judo-China, negara- hormat, kita telah memperuntukkan sepanjang negara di Asia Tenggara berpeluang untuk petang ini membahaskan usul yang akan di- mengembangkan bidang kerjasama serantau cadangkan oleh Ahli Yang Berhormat dari ke seluruh rantau Asia Tenggara, dan bagi Kota Melaka. Tujuannya ialah supaya ramai pihak ASEAN, ianya bersedia untuk be- Ahli-ahli yang suka mengambil bahagian kerjasama dengan Kerajaan-kerajaan baru dalam perbahasan ini boleh ataupun ada negara-negara di Indo-China itu yang meng- peluang boleh bercakap. Jadi, selain daripada hulurkan tangan persahabatan dan kerjasama- Ahli Yang Berhormat yang akan mencadang- nya kepada negara-negara tersebut. Maka ter- kan usul ini dan mana-mana Menteri atau pulanglah kepada negara-negara itu untuk Timbalan Menteri bagi pihak Kerajaan yang membuatkan apa-apa keputusan mereka sen- akan menjawabnya, saya cadangkan Ahli diri. Yang Berhormat yang hendak bercakap di- hadkan masanya tidak lebih daripada 10 PERCAKAPAN TALIPON (PHONE minit. Pada jam 6.10 petang saya akan men- TAPPING) jemput Ahli Yang Berhormat yang men- cadangkan usul ini sekiranya beliau berke- 3. Tuan Lim Kit Siang minta Menteri Hal hendak menggunakan hak beliau men- Ehwal Dalam Negeri menyatakan samada jawab dan pada jam 6.25 petang saya akan aktiviti-aktiviti mendengar percakapan talipon kemukakan usul untuk diputuskan oleh orang secara rahsia telah dipergiatkan oleh Dewan. Saya harap Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat Kerajaan dan jika ya, beri butir-butir lanjut. mengambil ingatan di atas peringatan saya itu. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri (Tan Sri Haji Muhammad Ghazali bin Shafie): Dan juga saya suka memaklumkan kepada Tuan Yang di-Pertua, hal ini kalau dibincang- Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, Ahli Yang Ber- kan akan bercanggah dengan keselamatan hormat dari Kota Melaka telah memberitahu negara. Jadi, saya minta izin janganlah kita saya menerusi Tuan Setiausaha Dewan panjangkan mengikut Peraturan 23 (4) dalam Rakyat bahawa beliau hendak meminta usul Peraturan Majlis Mesyuarat ini. Terima kasih. asalnya dengan ditambahkan selepas daripada 9777 19 DISEMBER 1975 9778 angka "1975" dengan perkataan-perkataan held a special session during the Third Malay- "dan Peraturan-peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes sia Law Conference and although no formal Keselamatan) (Pindaan), 1975". Saya tidak resolution was passed, it was clear that ada halangan untuk Yang Berhormat men- the lawyers overwhelmingly opposed the Re- cadangkan pindaan ini sebab tidaklah ber- gulations. Although the Straits Times in its canggah atau berlainan dengan tujuan usulnya Editorial of 20th November said, with regard yang asal. to the amended Regulations of the 4th of November, that the Government "has heard the pleas of Malaysia's legal community and 2.44 ptg. made major changes in the Essential (Secu- Tuan Lim Kit Siang (Kota Melaka): Tuan rity Cases) Regulations, 1975", a careful Yang di-Pertua, saya bangun mencadang- study of the amended Regulations would kan: show that the objections to the original Regu- Bahawa Dewan ini membatalkan Pera- lations of October 4 equally applied to the turan-peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes Kesela- amended Regulations of November 4, which matan), 1975 dan Peraturan-peraturan I shall develop. Perlu (Kes-kes Keselamatan) (Pindaan), There are multiple objections to the Secu- 1975. rity Cases Regulations and I shall deal with Saya minta izin bercakap dalam bahasa them one by one. Inggeris. First Objection: A Blow to the Rule of Law (Dengan izin) Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 4th of October, 1975, the Government gazetted The Government claims that it upholds the the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations, Rule of Law, and points to the Rukunegara 1975 under Section 2 of the Emergency where the Rule of Law is one of the five (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 1 of 1969. principles enshrined. These Regulations immediately attracted In his Hari Raya message, the Honourable national and international censure for their the Prime Minister, on 5th October, 1975, blatant disregard of human rights and the explaining the need for the Security Cases overturning of basic principles of law in Regulations, said that the Government up- stripping away all the essential safeguards held the Rule of Law. for a fair trial in a new breed of cases called However, the Bar Council Memorandum to the "security cases". all Members of Parliament dated 28th Opposition parties, lawyers, students and October explained that the Bar Council concerned Malaysians were horrified by the opposed the Regulations because the Regula- far-reaching consequences and implications tions would "demoralise all who believe in of the Regulations. It was these Regulations the Rule of Law in this country by bringing which sparked off the widespread student the law itself into disrepute." demonstrations in Australia and New Zealand It is clear that the principle of the Rule of when the Yang Amat Berhormat the Prime Law means different things for those in power Minister visited these two countries in the and for those outside power. In fact, I had second part of October. And if Malaysian occasion in this House to stress that the Rule university students at home had not been of Law can only be meaningful if it banned from taking part in public activities, differentiates good law from bad law. I am sure they would have risen up in even larger numbers and on a larger scale than What the Government means by Rule of in December last year to protest against these Law is nothing more than "legality". It is Regulations. important that we should be able to differentiate between these two very different On the 4th November of 1975, the Govern- concepts—the "Rule of Law" and "legality". ment amended the Regulations in the form of the Essential (Security Cases) (Amendment) It is possible for every act of the Executive Regulations, 1975, while in the intervening Government to be perfectly lawful, without period there were more and more protests the law itself being honoured or supreme. The and expressions of concern. For instance, on Attorney-General, I am sure, is aware of the the 13th of October, 1975 the Bar Council Roman law maxim to the effect that "the 9779 19 DISEMBER 1975 9780

Emperor's wish has the force of law". It has fully supported by the whole investigating been pointed out by an eminent judge that machinery of Government, then the chances if the maxim is part of the Constitution of of an individual proving his innocence—with- the country and if the Emperor chooses to out the support of a competent investigative give his servants unfettered powers to do machinery, but entirely on his own resources— as they please, their actions, no matter how are almost non-existent. oppressive or capricious, will be perfectly legal. But in that country, there will not be Even when the prosecution evidence is not a true Rule of Law! sufficient to hang a cat, the presiding Judge has no power or discretion—however much We therefore repudiate any definition of the he doubts the guilt of the accused or believes Rule of Law which equates it with "legality", in his innocence— to discharge the unfortu- which is to reduce the principle of Rule of nate accused. The judge has no option but to Law to utter meaninglessness, for in that call the defence. In every foreseable case, the sense, every legal system, even the organised innocent, merely by being charged on the mass murders of the Nazi regime, qualifies most tenuous of grounds, has to discharge the as law. same burden as a guilty person of disproving all suspicion of guilt. The Government's definition of Rule of The question Mr Cumarswamy asked is Law is a very simplistic one, as seen by the also the question which we should all ask Commentary in the Rukunegara Principles ourselves: "Which reasonable person can issued in 1970 which states: "The Rule of remember what he did or where he was the Law is ensured by the existence of an inde- previous Monday or Friday? Yet he is pendent Judiciary with powers to pronounce required to discharge this impossible burden. on the constitutionality and legality or other- Should he say he cannot honestly remember, wise of Executive acts". What is the use of an he would be held unwilling to answer and a independent Judiciary when the laws allow finding of guilt is inevitable." arbitary interference with the fundamental rights and liberties of the individuals? Tuan Speaker, the amendments of Novem- ber 4 did not restore this fundamental legal The Principle of the Rule of Law, Tuan principle that a man is presumed innocent Speaker, is a very big subject and conferences until proved guilty. This is only the most after conferences have been devoted to it notable of the many basic rules of evidence, alone, although our Government thinks it is which have been designed to ensure that only something which can be disposed of in two the guilty are punished, which have been dis- or three paragraphs. carded, and reduce the trials of persons for committing security offences to a mere show I shall, however, only confine myself to of legal respectability without giving the the aspect directly involving the Security Cases accused a genuine opportunity to defend Regulations. The Security Cases Regulations himself. Other rules of evidence which have are a blow to the Rule of Law because it strips been overturned to the detriment of the away all the essential safeguards for a fair liberty of the subject include the following: trial. The principle that a man is innocent until proved guilty is abandoned. (1) Hooded Witnesses One of the most fundamental safeguards Under Clause 21 of the original October 4 for a fair trial is the presumption that a man Regulations, prosecution witnesses have the is presumed innocent until proved guilty. right to give evidence in camera and in the These new Regulations effectively remove absence of the accused and even his counsel. this safeguard. The Regulations also provide for the prosecu- tion witness to wear such dress and to give The Secretary of the Bar Council, Mr the evidence in such manner or circumstances, Cumaraswamy, in a paper entitled "Essential or by such methods, as will not lead to his (Security Cases) Regulations 1975—Is the identification and under no circumstances, Rule of Law in Jeopardy" at the Third shall he be asked as to his name, address, Malaysia Law Conference, has rightly pointed age, occupation, race or other particulars out that if conviction in some cases cannot be which will lead to his identification. This obtained by the Public Prosecutor, who is makes it impossible for the defence to 9781 19 DISEMBER 1975 9782 impeach the credit of the prosecution witness It will be a field day, Tuan Speaker, for and is most repugnant to all norms of justice agent provocateurs and informants who, for and fair play. reward, would have no fear or scruples to manufacture false evidence as they could not Although the November 4 Regulations be found out or charged for perjury; and toned down this provision, the Regulations open the doors wide for blackmail by un- still allow hooded witnesses to go into the scrupulous and unprincipled agent provo- witness box without being seen or heard by cateurs and informants and to blackmail law- the accused and his counsel. abiding, innocent citizens. Thus, Regulation 19 of the amended Regulation 24 of the November 4 Regula- November 4 Security Cases Regulations has tions gives even more scope for such black- this provision to say and with your permission mail and perjury. Tuan Speaker: "24. (1) Any person may give information "19. (1) Where at any time during the trial, relating to a security offence to a police the court is satisfied that any of the officer or other public officer and the witnesses for the prosecution is afraid to identity of the informant giving such have his identity disclosed and therefore information shall at his request be kept wishes to give evidence in such a manner secret. that he could not be seen or heard by both the accused and his counsel, the pro- (2) A report setting out the said infor- cedure contained in paragraphs (3) and (4) mation shall be admissible in evidence shall apply. without the informant being required to give evidence, and the court shall give due (2) For the purposes of satisfying itself weight and consideration to such infor- as to the need to follow this procedure of mation." recording evidence under this regulation, the Court shall hold an inquiry in camera Only yesterday, I met a Malaysian citizen by asking the witness concerned or any who said that nowadays, he makes it a point other witness in the absence of the accused of winding up and locking his car wherever and his counsel. he goes, for who knows, some police officer (3) If after such inquiry the court is or informant who does not like him, may satisfied as aforesaid, the evidence of such plant some bullets or incriminating documents witness shall be given in camera and in in his car and get him charged for a security addition thereto, he shall give evidence in offence. such manner as he shall not be visible to Again, as has been pointed out, when there the accused or his counsel, but shall be is a bomb explosion, and everyone runs in visible to the court; and further if the all different directions, who can prove that he witness fears that his voice may be was not involved in the act? It would be open recognised, his evidence may be given for any informant or agent provocateur to through an interpreter or other officer of give a statement under Regulation 24 or even the court who shall relay to the witness to give evidence under Regulation 19 that he such questions as may be put to him in saw so-and-so in the company of persons who examination-in-chief, cross-examination and were responsible for throwing bombs. I do re-examination and in turn shall relay back not think it is possible for anyone to prove to the court the answers given by the wit- that he is innocent under such circumstances, ness to such questions. that he definitely had no association with the (4) The court may disallow such bomb-throwers, for the bomb-throwers are questions to be put to the witness as to his the only competent witnesses to exonerate name, address, age, occupation, race or him in such circumstances. other particulars or such other questions as in the opinion of the court will lead to In these circumstances, with such infor- the witness's identification." mation under Clause 24 or testimony under Clause 19, I dare say that even should the Thus, under the amended November 4 Honourable the Attorney-General himself, Regulations, the defence would have no should he be around the vicinity of the inci- way again to impeach such prosecution dent at that time, would not be able to prove witnesses and challenge their falsity. his innocence against such tainted evidence. 9783 19 DISEMBER 1975 9784

(2) Changes in the rules of evidence in property of any person wanted for the investi- allowing statements "made to or in the gations of a security case and the granting of hearing of a police officer", admission and the right to grant bail except for offences confessions, cautioned or uncautioned state- carrying the death penalty or life imprison- ments to a spouse during marriage, incrimi- ment. nating statements, evidence of an accomplice or that of a person of tender age will now be These amendments of the November 4 to admissible, together with hearsay evidence, the October 4 Regulations, however, leave the which will be at the discretion of the Court. drastic and draconian features substantially The reasons for these rules of evidence had intact, and constitute a grave blow to the been to prevent tainted testimony and wrong- Rule of Law in removing important and ful conviction from being given. Now the fundamental safeguards to protect the life and safeguards are removed. liberty of the subject. This is highlighted by Regulations 27 of the November 4 Regula- (3) Abolition of trial by jury or with the tions which is a new provision which provides: aid of assessors. Even during the Emergency "27. When an appeal is presented against in colonial times, trials under the Emergency an acquittal, the court against whose deci- then prevailing were with the aid of assessors. sion the appeal is presented may issue a (4) Limited right of appeal. Even before warrant directing that the accused be the introduction of the Court of Judicature arrested and brought before it, and may (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill which was debated commit him to prison pending the disposal in this House two days ago abolishing appeal of the appeal, or admit him to bail." to the Privy Council in constitutional and criminal cases, appeal with regard to security Here, not only is a person deemed guilty cases to the Privy Council had been abolished. until and unless he can prove his innocence, but having proved his innocence in securing I concede that the November 4 Amended an acquittal, he is still deemed guilty and can Regulations had repealed the more drastic be put in prison until he wins again against and draconian appeal provisions of the the appeal applied for by the Public Pro- October 4 Regulations, which did not even secutor. An acquittal under the Regulations, give the right of appeal for review, either for therefore, is no acquittal, and no proof of mistake in law or mistake of fact or mis- innocence, but re-committal and re-imprison- carriage of justice, for those jailed for less ment. If this unfortunate person comes under than three months. Regulation 26 (1) (c), where the Court of But Regulation 30 (3) of the original first instance is the Sessions Court, he may October 4 Regulations provides that while a be acquitted and re-imprisoned not once, but person who has been jailed for less than three twice, as appeal against his acquittal can go months cannot appeal against it and have it to the High Court with a further right of set aside or reduced, the Public Prosecutor appeal to the Federal Court. This shows the can appeal against the very same sentence on complete abandonment of the Rule of Law the ground that it is too light and that it with the introduction of these Regulations. should be a heavier penalty. Although this provision has now been repealed, it throws a Second Objection: A Blow to Human Rights sharp insight into the minds and outlook of Tuan Yang di-Pertua, the second obiec- persons who are in charge of making laws in tion to the Security Cases Regulations is that this country, for this provision could only be it is a big blow to human rights advancement conceived by persons to whom all ideas of in Malaysia. These Regulations are a direct justice and fair play are strangers. violation of the Universal Declaration of In substance, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, the Human Rights, 1948. Article 11 of the Uni- amended November 4 Regulations do not versal Declaration of Human Rights states: depart materially from the October 4 Regula- tions. Under the amendments, the Courts are "Article 11 no more bound, I agree, to impose the 1. Everyone charged with a penal offence maximum penalty in every case; the power has the right to be presumed innocent to detain an accused person for a full 60 days until proved guilty according to law in without producing him in court repealed; public trial at which he has had all removal of the power to confiscate the guarantees necessary for his defence. 9785 19 DISEMBER 1975 9786 2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal Third Objection: Constitutional Violations offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, The third objection to the Security Cases under national or international law, at Regulations is that they violate fundamental the time when it was committed. Nor liberties in the Constitution, Clause 4 of shall a heavier penalty be imposed than October 4 Regulations provides for the arrest the one that was applicable at the time of a person suspected of committing a security the penal offence was committed." offence by the police without a warrant and without being produced before a Magistrate Thus, the Essential (Security Cases) Regu- or Court for as long as 60 days. This is in lations violate both Clauses of Article 11 of direct violation of Article 5 (4) of the Malay- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, sian Constitution which reads: in presuming guilt until proof of innocence, and in providing for retrospective effect in "Where a person is arrested and not released Regulation 3 (2) of the Amended Regulations. he shall without unreasonable delay, and In fact, the Regulations also violate Article 3 in any case within 24 hours (excluding the of the Declaration, which reads: "Everyone time of any necessary journey) be produced has the right to life, liberty and security of before a magistrate and shall not be further person." detained in custody without the magistrate's authority." The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, is a common Although this provision has been withdrawn standard of achievement which we, as a in the November 4 Amended Regulations, it member nation of the United Nations, has is not on the ground that it is unconstitutional, pledged to strive, to promote, respect and to for the Honourable the Attorney-General had secure their universal and effective recogni- argued that although the Regulations were tion and observance. Malaysia has already against certain provisions of the Constitution, fallen short of many rights and freedoms the Emergency Ordinance provided that such enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Regulations could be made. It is for this Human Rights, like Article 9—"No one shall reason that the Amended November 4 Regu- be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or lations, Regulation 29 (1) and (2) altered the exile"; Article 13—"Everyone has the right Constitutional provisions in Article 42 (1) and to freedom of movement and residence within (2) whereby the power to grant pardons, the borders of each state"; Article 20— reprieves and respites or to remit, suspend "Everyone has the right to freedom of peace- or commute sentence of all security cases, ful assembly and association." are now exercisable by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong rather than the respective Sultans and These Regulations will make Malaysia Governors as provided in the Constitution. violate three other rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and put I am aware that Clause (6) of Article 150 Malaysia further and further away from the of the Constitution provides that any Emer- accepted standards of civilised nations. Let gency Ordinance is valid even if it is incon- it not be said that human rights are luxuries sistent with any provisions of the Constitution, which we in Malaysia with democracy ala' apart from some exceptions, but I shall submit Kuala Lumpur cannot afford. For those so- later that despite this provision, the Regu- minded, I will like to remind them of the lations violated the Malaysian Constitution, Preamble to the Universal Declaration of both in the spirit and in the letter. Human Rights which set out the Human Rights as a common standard of achievement Fourth Objection: Regulations will permit for all peoples and all nations because: gross abuse and misuse of power, "(1) Disregard and contempt for human I have mentioned earlier how Regulation rights have resulted in barbarous acts 19, in permitting hooded or hidden witnesses which have outraged the conscience of and Regulation 24, in permitting police mankind; and informer's information to be admitted without (2) It is essential, if man is not to be requiring the informer to be called as a compelled to have recourse, as last witness, will open the floodgates for perjury resort to rebellion against tyranny and and blackmail. Whenever vast discretionary oppression, that human rights should powers are given, they are very susceptible be protected by rule of law." to abuse and misuse. Thus, Regulation 2 9787 19 DISEMBER 1975 9788 defines a "security offence" as an offence privacy and end privacy and personal con- against Sections 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 or 62 of the fidentiality, but give instruments to many Internal Security Act, 1960, or "any offence unscrupulous persons to intimidate and black- against any other written law the commission mail individuals from the information that of which is certified by the Attorney-General they would come into possession from such to affect the security of the Federation". This postal and telecommunication interference. means that the Attorney-General can by We know that phone-tapping and mail inter- certificate classify an offence as a security ception have been going on for quite some case, and remove all the legal protection which time, but this is the first time the Government a subject is legally entitled to. I am not being is publicly admitting it and wanting to make personal, but I stress that it is wrong in prin- use of these interceptions as evidence. ciple and in practice to vest such vast powers in any single person, and it would be a These infamous provisions would lead to miracle that such vast powers would not be real gross abuse, as shown by the great misused, even if it should be merely because Watergate scandal in America, where these of the sheer inability of the Attorney-General, powers were used for petty personal, partisan who has many tasks, to find sufficient time and political purposes completely unrelated to to go into every such case in sufficient detail questions of national security. submitted up to him for such a certificate. On 8th October, the Honourable the Another Regulation which will open wide Attorney-General when referring to fears the doors for abuse and misuse of power and expressed by Opposition parties, lawyers and corruption is Regulation 23, which reads: concerned Malaysians that the new regulations "23 (1) The Public Prosecutor may, if he might be open to abuse, said that "in spite considers that any articles or of the best laws and regulations and the best message sent through the post or administrative system, there may be still ways telecommunication are likely to open to abuse if those in a position to do so contain any information relating to have the intention or have no scruples." The a security offence, authorise any Honourable the Attorney-General said that police officer either orally or in the crux of the matter was really a question writing— of faith, trust and obligation. He claimed that (a) to intercept, detain and open the Government had these qualities and these any postal article in course had been proved time and again. of transmission by post; I submit that this contention cannot be (b) to intercept any message accepted for this contention would logically transmitted or received by any spell and end of the Rule of Law. What telecommunication; or Malaysia needs to establish as a national (c) to intercept or listen to any tradition and institution is that ours is a conversation by telephone. government of laws and not a government (2) In a trial of a security case, any of men, for in the latter case, the oppor- information by a police officer in tunities for abuse and corruption are pursuance of paragraph (1), whether infinite. before or after the commencement of the trial, shall be admissible in Laws of a country must not depend on the evidence without the originator of supposition of fair and just government the information being required to leaders. Even more important, it must be give evidence." based on fair and just laws, administered by fair and just men. Without fair and just And there is no check, because every time laws, there is no more rule of law, but rule we try to ask questions about phone-tapping of men in power according to their whims the Minister will hide behind "national and fancies on different occasions and at security", as he did during question time different times, and although the Honourable today. the Attorney-General has assured that he This Regulation gives legality to the most would personally scrutinise every case obnoxious activities like phone-tapping and aga'nst any person before he or she is mail interception, which will not only intrude charged under the Regulations, the people 9789 19 DISEMBER 1975 9790 cannot be assured that so long as such dipukul dengan tangan, dan dipijak-pijak vast, unchecked powers are exerciseable by sama kaki sampai saya pengsan. Bila saya one man, there cannot be human failings. sedar, ia telah masukkan saya dalam lock-up." In fact, in my six years as a Member of Parliament, one thing which strikes me most Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Polis Report nom- is that although Ministers are theoretically bor berapa, berapa haribulan dan dibuat di the head of their Ministries, I find that in stesyen mana? most cases Ministers are run by their Ministries and their bureaucratic machinery, rather than the other way round where Tuan Lim Kit Siang: Police Report on Ministers run their Ministries. 12th of May in Malacca. I have also seen enough instances of Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Nombor tidak tahu? abuse of power by the Government to be able to take comfort from such assurances. Tuan Lim Kit Siang: As a matter of fact I have a copy here. The gross abuse of power, for instance, excesses and corruption in the Sabah State Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Tidak apalah Yang Government have become public know- Berhormat, bukanlah saya suruh cari. Sebut ledge—because government of laws had report itu dibuat oleh siapa, haribulan degenerated into a government of men. For sudah ada. instance, in August 1973 during the Elopura State by-election the Opposition Menteri Hal Ehvval Dalam Negeri (Tan candidate was physically prevented from Sri Haji Muhammad Ghazali bin Shafie): going to the nomination centre by the Report itu dibuat oleh siapa? police on grounds of subversive documents and a pistol planted in the party premises. Tuan Lim Kit Siang: Bukan oleh saya, Another example of gross abuse of power oleh Chan Hoa sendiri, iaitu orang yang is the case of lorry-driver Chan Hoa of berkenaan. Tangkak who was taken to the Tangkak Police Station on 28th April at midnight. Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Sila sambung. This is an extract from a police report that he lodged on 12th May in Malacca: Tuan Lim Kit Siang: Chan Hoa was re- "Bila sampai di Polis Tangkak dia leased on the 6th of May and was treated (tiga orang yang kenalkan dirinya sebagai in Malacca Hospital for serious bodily mata gelap) soal saya bertanya: Awak injuries and eye injuries. After he had lodged ada ambil barang orang, dan saya jawab: a police report in the Malacca Hospital Tiada apa-apa yang saya ambil about the police brutalities, he was asked to go to the Muar Police Station for an Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Apa Yang Ber- identification parade of the two persons who hormat baca itu? assaulted him. Meanwhile, approaches were made to Chan Hoa's family to settle the Tuan Lim Kit Siang: Daripada Police matter with the threat that otherwise Chan Report. Hoa would never be able to live in Tangkak again. Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Sebutlah daripada These approaches were spurned by Chan Police Report. Hoa. Chan Hoa did not go to Muar for the identification until August 11, partly because Tuan Lim Kit Siang: Police Report. he had not fully recovered from the injuries "Dan saya jawab: Tiada apa-apa yang and partly because he was afraid to go to saya ambil, dan tak tahu. Kemudian saya the Muar Police Station after this experience telah dipukul dengan tangan oleh dua in the Tangkak Police Station. orang yang tangkap saya itu oleh laki-laki India dan laki-laki China pada badan It was I who advised him that he must go saya dan dada dan kedua belah mata, to the Muar Police Station to identify the dan sampai keluar darah dari mulut, persons concerned who assaulted him for mata saya bengkak dan merah. Saya otherwise the matter would be dropped and 9791 19 DISEMBER 1975 9792 on my advice he went on the 11th August Hansard: "Saya tidak ingin hendak mengulas and identified the people concerned. On the satu persatu daripada apa yang diucapkan- 17th August he was arrested and charged nya tetapi hanya dua perkara yang saya for assisting in disposing stolen property. petik bahawa Datuk James Wong me- nafikan dia tidak menerima satu sen pun The conclusion is clear, that if Chan Hoa daripada Seri Begawan. Mungkin akuan ini had not pursued his police report, and did benar. Akan tetapi siapa tahu kalau dia not go to the Muar Police Station to identify telah menerima wang daripada ejen-ejen the two persons who assaulted him, the yang lain dan tidak menerima daripada charge probably would not have been made. Seri Begawan mungkin betul tetapi tidak Is this the type of justice and fair play dapat kita menafikan dan tidak siapa yang in which the Government expect the people tahu dia telah menerima daripada ejen yang to have confidence and trust and obligation? lain." Incidentally I may state here Chan Hoa's The question I want to ask is, can the lawyers had written to the Muar Police for Government deprive a person of his liberty the names of the two persons identified so and freedom and detain him indefinitely on that they can start civil action. There has the ground that "nobody knows whether he been no reply from the Muar Police for has accepted money from the Agent". The five months and I may state again here that Government does not know, nobody knows, despite the official Police Report which the On these grounds can the Government Honourable Minister said must be made and detain a person and deprive him of his rights was made, no action has been taken on the and liberties? Datuk James Wong here is Police Report. deemed guilty until and unless he could prove himself innocent of a charge which Finally, on the question of abuse of power the Government cannot proffer with any I want to mention the case and detention of particularity! From a charge which the Datuk James Wong as a last example of the Government itself cannot detail! constant abuse of power by the Government authorities. I had said in this House on I hope the Honourable Attorney-General December 9, that Datuk James Wong was and the Minister of Home Affairs can detained on the grounds that he had met the understand now why I, and large numbers Seri Begawan of Brunei on a day in May of Malaysians, cannot feel comfortable or 1974 at 10 p.m. and accepted $4 million in happy about assurances that the vast powers return for agreeing to secede Limbang to cannot and will not be abused, when in the past and present, they had been abused Brunei. I had also mentioned that on the galore! 6th May 1975, Datuk James Wong had sworn an affidavit that: The Fifth Objection: Regulations under- mine Parliamentary Democracy. (i) he did not receive a single cent from the Seri Begawan, Brunei; The fifth objection to the Security Cases (ii) that he did not know the Seri Begawan Regulations is that they undermine and of Brunei personally as his last erode public confidence in the Parliamentary meeting with him was in or about democracy, and mark another step towards 1965 when he was the Deputy Chief an authoritarian police state. Minister of Sarawak and had accom- It was highly improper for the Essential panied the present Honourable Prime (Security Cases) Regulations, which altered Minister on an official visit to the so drastically the legal and constitutional Sultanate of Brunei; rights of Malaysians, to be made by virtue (iii) that he had not met the Seri Begawan of Section 2 of the Emergency (Essential since 1965 and had never corres- Powers) Ordinance No. 1 of 1969, when ponded with him; and firstly, the 1969 Emergency covered different circumstances from those facing the (iv) that he was never in Brunei on any country today, and secondly when Parli- day at 10 p.m. in May 1974. ament had already been summoned to meet. What had the Honourable the Deputy In fact, the impropriety is so manifest Minister of Home Affairs who signed that it tantamounts to an unsurpation of Datuk James Wong's detention order to Parliamentary powers and functions by the say? This is what he said and it is from the Executive. 9793 19 DISEMBER 1975 9794

Under Article 150 of the Constitution, the in their origins and clearly enforceable in Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on Cabinet constitutional terms. The end result is an advice, is empowered to issue a proclamation authoritarian police state. of emergency if he is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security or In Malaysia, we have since 1963 lived in economic life of the Federation or any part a permanent state of emergency, and there thereof is threatened. are parallel systems of government where Ordinances and Regulations introduce new If a proclamation of emergency is issued legal principles which draw their sole authority when Parliament is not sitting, the Yang di- from the State of Emergency, most notably Pertuan Agong must summon Parliament as of late the Security Cases Regulations and the soon as may be practicable. Until both Houses Rukun Tetangga Regulations which are of of Parliament are sitting, he may promulgate the same litter of regulations. Ordinances having the force of law. Clause (6) of this Article provides that any Ordinance For example, the Rukun Tetangga Regula- made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and any tions, which were not passed by Parliament, Act of Parliament passed while a proclamation have introduced the questionable principle of of emergency is in force, is valid, even if group liability in criminal law, or punishing inconsistent with any provisions of the a man by inflicting penalties on members of Constitution, with certain exceptions. his family. Thus Clause 33 (2) of the Rukun Tetangga Regulations provides that "Where a I submit that it is contrary both to the family resides together in the same premises letter and spirit of the Constitution for the and there is proof against any member there- Government to continue to make laws by of a charge for any offence of the commission Emergency Powers, in this case make Regula- of which or of the attempt or preparation for tions by virtue of the 1969 Emergency the commission of which the other members (Essential Powers) Ordinance when both of the family so residing would, in the Houses of Parliament are scheduled to meet. ordinary course of events, have had know- ledge, each of the other members of the It is not only unconstitutional in this sense, family who is above the age of 14 years shall but marks, as I said, another step towards be deemed to be guilty of the offence." Clause making Malaysia an authoritarian police 5 (2) of the Regulations provides that "An state. Order made under these Regulations may Santayana, a noted thinker, said that those provide for admissibility or non-admissibility who do not remember the past mistakes are of evidence, burden of proof, the inclusion of condemned to relive it, and it behoves us not any evidence as a defence, protection of in- to make the mistakes and to learn from the formers, admissibility of information or state- experience and suffering of other people in ments given by an accused or any other other times and other places had make or person, or any other matter whatsoever undergone. relating to evidence, for the purpose of any proceedings under these Regulations or under The common means for introducing any order." authoritarian system of government is by the use of reserve constitutional powers and the This means that an Order made under introduction of a permanent state of emer- these Regulations can be even more draconian gency. and oppressive than even the Security Cases Regulations, and the judiciary must apply The permanent state of emergency provides them because it is law. a legal basis for any subsequent institutional or judical change. It introduces parallel systems In fact, we in Malaysia have lived in a of government, where on the one hand, it was double state of permanent emergency, as used to create new institutions and to intro- both the Emergency Proclamations of 1963 duce new legal principles which draw their and 1969 are still operative. sole authority from the state of emergency. On the other hand, it allowed the normal state Let us retrace our steps and not take the machinery of government to co-exist where it path others have trodden towards an authori- could serve a useful purpose. The Judiciary tarian police state. If we are to uphold demo- are neutralised and are required to apply cratic forms of government, there must be draconian laws, which are unexpectionable restrictions on the assumption and exercise 9795 19 DISEMBER 1975 9796

of emergency powers. There should be a basic rights of Malaysians, the effect is only to system of judicial control over the assumption undermine the people's confidence in the and exercise of emergency powers by the Government. Executive with a view to: Let me remind the Government that the (a) determine whether the circumstances security problem faced by the country is have arisen and the conditions have basically a fight for the hearts and minds of been fulfilled under which the powers the people, and it is essential that in every may be exercised; measure conceived and decided by the (b) limiting the extent to which such Government, it should be able to communicate emergency powers may be exercised to the people that it is to preserve democratic in derogation of the fundamental rights rights and freedoms. Is the Government of the individual; and aware that the Essential Regulations, both (c) giving the courts a supervisory jurisdic- of the 4th October and 4th November are tion to ensure that emergency powers seen by many Malaysians as a dimunition of are used only for the specific purpose the democratic rights of Malaysians, and for which they were granted, and that therefore unacceptable? they are not exceeded. Thus, when the Government talks of the need to drastically change the law, by dis- We should return to our Merdeka Consti- carding the legal principle that a man is tution of 1957 which provided that a pro- innocent until proved guilty, to meet the clamation of emergency automatically ceased communist threat, the people do not see an to be in force at the end of two months after equal determination to fight and combat its issue, and an Ordinance promulgated by corruption in high public places by also the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the end of putting them in the same position whereby 15 days from the date on which both Houses they have to prove their innocence and are sitting, unless before that period it has deemed guilty unless proved innocent. Yet been approved by resolution of each House, the public hears constantly Ministers saying if we are not to have parallel systems of that corruption is as dangerous as commu- government and go the way of an authori- nism. tarian police state. The Security Cases Regulations cannot The Merdeka Constitutional provision deter the committed communist guerrillas about the lapsing of Proclamations of Emer- in towns and jugles for they take the risk gency unless positively confirmed by Parlia- into calculation. The killing of the Perak ment reinforces my earlier argument that Chief Police Officer and a Malacca Special when Parliament is in session, is in sitting, Branch Officer after the gazetting of the no Ordinance or Regulations should be made, Security Cases Regulations should back this for their exercise detract from the credibility point. and meaning of Parliamentary democracy. The Regulations, however, can implicate a lot of innocent people and bring trouble to Sixth Objection: Regulations a set-back in the many because of the boundless opportunities battle to win the hearts and minds of the for abuse and misuse of power under the people. Regulations. The Regulations are only the latest in a series of panic measures which the Because of the foregoing reasons, the Government has taken in the face of a new Essential (Security Cases) Regulations are a situation in Malaysia and South East Asia set-back in the battle to win the hearts and following communist victories in Indo-China. minds of the people. In April this year, I had warned the Govern- ment not to resort to panic measures as at When introducing the Essential (Security that time it was introducing the Universities Cases) Regulations on 2nd October, 1975 and Colleges Amendment Act to ban univer- the Honourable the Attorney General said sity students from any form of public activity. that the Government is justified in introducing these Regulations to gain the people's con- The Government should learn from the fidence in view of the serious situation. By lessons of Vietnam. Security cannot be introducing these regulations of such far- legislated into being. Security and stability reaching consequences which diminishes the can only be created by winning the hearts 9797 19 DISEMBER 1975 9798 and minds of the people through change of Mr Speaker, Sir, this country has seen policies which can gain popular support of three crises: (i) the Emergency of 1948 to the people. This is the only way to win the 1960; (ii) the Confrontation with Indonesia; urban and jungle guerrilla warfare. and (iii) the May 13 riots. In all these three crises, the Government of the day did not seek History may well show that these regula- to impose such Emergency Regulations. Why tions, far from improving the situation, has then should these Regulations be imposed on been counter productive and aggravated the us today? I say that the Government has security situation, because it started a new panicked and in their panic they have pro- phase where there is greater unchecked abuse duced these Regulations. These Regulations of power, denial of freedom and basic rights have, as I said, raped the human rights and of Malaysians, rule of terror, widespread the Rule of Law and these Regulations have blackmail and victimisation of the innocent, struck fear and consternation into a large rampant corruption—in other words, section of our people. The Honourable alienation of more and more Malaysians by Attorney-General has stated that only lawyers, the Kangaroo court system. Members of Parliament and a few others have objected to these Regulations. May I I move to repeal the Essential (Security remind him that Datuk Stephen Yong Kuet Cases) Regulations, 1975 and the Essential Tze, who is not here now and who is the (Security Cases) (Amendments) Regulations Secretary-General of the S.U.P.P. has also 1975 to seek to regain sanity for the course, said that these Regulations could cause mis- the direction that the country is taking. conception and that the Internal Security Act and the Firearms Act of 1971 were adequate Dr Chen Man Hin (Seremban): Tuan Yang to cope with the present situation. di-Pertua, saya mohon menyokong. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must warn that these Regulations, far from giving the correct 3.30 ptg. picture of the security situation of this country, Dr Tan Chee Khoon (Kepong): (Dengan may well be counter-productive and people izin) Mr Speaker, Sir, the record of the outside may think that the situation is much Alliance Government, now the Barisan worse than it really is. This, of course, will Government, on matters of human rights as erode confidence not only of the people of has been pointed out by the Member for Kota this country but also abroad and has lots of Melaka has been a very dismal one. side effects. The Attorney-General himself has admitted that though the Regulations are First, I shall very briefly touch on the rape against certain provisions of the Constitution, of human rights in this country. First, we had the Emergency Ordinance has provided that from 1948 to 1960 the Emergency Regulations such Regulations could be made and therefore which, although they were bad enough, had there was no need to amend the Constitution. the virtue of having been renewed every year. But when the war against militant communism This is certainly a most extra-ordinary state- was deemed to be over, the Emergency ment coming from the highest legal officer of Regulations were codified into the obnoxious the Government. First, there is the admission and notorious Internal Security Act. Then we that these Regulations are ultra vires of certain had subsequently several Acts which eroded provisions of the Constitution. Because the the rule of law and the human rights in this Emergency Ordinance No. 2 of 1961 em- country, namely the Letter of Suitability which powered the Government to do so, they are was introduced as an amendment to the quite all right, said the Attorney-General. Internal Security Act, the Universities and The Attorney-General, of course, is entitled University Colleges Act and, lately, further to his opinions and views, but I venture to say amendments to the Universities and the that the constitutionality of these Regulations University Colleges Act. Today we are asked will be challenged in the Courts of Justice to debate the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations, which are a violation of many before long. Literally, the Government must of the tenets of Malaysian justice and indeed not be allowed to get away with murder and, of many of the inviolate rights enshrined in therefore, these Regulations must and, I hope our Constitution. will be, tested in our Courts of Law. 9799 19 DISEMBER 1975 9800 Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall now touch very wage a "war" against children in this country. briefly on some of the essential features of Regulation 3 (3) makes frightful reading, for these Regulations. under it any person can be charged with a security offence regardless of age. Is this First is the principle accepted in all Government embarking on a "war" against democratic countries that a person should be the children of this country? deemed to be innocent until he is proved otherwise by the prosecution. Here the I shall give but one instance, Mr Speaker, Government can literally arrest a person for Sir. A child walks along the street. Along no rhyme or reason and then can say, "You comes a man and says, "Please take this prove your innocence because you say you parcel to that place." This is a child of 10 or were running away from a bomb attack". 12 years' old and an adult tells him, "I will That simple illustration will, I hope, show give you $2, you go and buy some sweets", how draconian these Regulations are. and so the child delivers this parcel. Along comes a Special Branch chap, catches hold of Under Rule 2 (2) of the principal Regu- the child, finds some subversive documents or lations, a lowly D.P.P. with hardly any bullets inside the parcel and the boy literally experience can create a security offence— has it. I say that the boy is more sinned literally he can. Fortunately, the Government against than being a sinner, and yet under has now thought it wise to amend that, and these Regulations the boy can be sent to the now we are told that a security offence is gallows literally. related to the seven offences under the Inter- nal Security Act, and the Attorney-General Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Ada satu minit lagi, now has to certify the security offences. I say, Yang Berhormat. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is humanly impossible for the Attorney-General with all the goodwill in Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the world to do this task faithfully. Now we there are many other frightful features of know that thousands have been pulled in for these Regulations. But I say that the Pardons interrogation and if only 5% of those who Board makes a mockery, because the Pardons have been pulled in are charged, it means the Board consists of Senior Cabinet Ministers Attorney-General will have to read through who were responsible for making these very carefully hundreds of files; and can he Regulations. How can anyone who has been honestly say that he has the time to read into convicted and sentenced to death hope to get the hundreds of files that come before him, a fair hearing before such a Pardons Board. I apart from the fact that yesterday and day say that if Government is serious in wanting before yesterday, we passed several amend- to have a Pardons Board that can earn the ments to the C.P.C. and the Penal Code respect of the people, then it must consist of where also the Attorney-General has to independent people of high standing from the certify. I say the Attorney-General, with all public. I say that these Regulations, Mr the goodwill in the world, is not capable of Speaker, Sir, are open to wide abuse all the such a task. He must be a "superman" to do way down the line and if we are not careful, it, and I do not think he himself will admit we can turn our courts of law into kangaroo that he is a "superman". (Ketawa) courts. Mr Speaker, Sir, the other matter that I Mr Speaker, Sir, since time does not per- wish to protest is the retrospective nature of mit me to say much, I shall end by quoting these Regulations. This means that any person this verse from Pastor Nei Moeller who, as who committed any security offence before we all know, is a very vehement anti-Nazist. October 4th—that is before the date of the He says: promulgation of the principal Regulations— "At first, they persecuted communists and will now be charged under these Regulations, we kept silent. Then it was the Jews, and although at the time the offence was we did nothing. When finally, they per- committed, these Regulations were not in secuted the Christians, we tried to do some- existence. This provision is bad in law and thing, but it was too late." unworthy of any civilised Government, and I call on the Minister to repeal it. Let it not be said that this Government in trying to solve the security position of this The Government, not content with the country does away with the Rule of Law, retrospective nature of the law, now seeks to then it is too late to reverse gear. 9801 19 DISEMBER 1975 9802 3.43 ptg. Tuan Yang di-Pertua: We are now deba- ting this particular Motion. You are referring Tuan Rasiah Rajasingam (Jelutong): to something that has already been discussed (Dengan izin) Tuan Yang di-Pertua, touching in the past on this Motion by the Honourable Member for Kota Melaka asking for the repeal of the Tuan Rasiah Rajasingam: I am only Essential (Security Cases) Regulations, 1975 asking, I am not objecting. I am not sup- and the amendments thereto, as a member of porting nor objecting to it. the Bar, I only know of the present security situation from the newspaper reports that we Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Sit down please read every day. But the best person who when the Chair speaks. Resume your seat would know about the real security situation please when the Chair addresses the House. is the Honourable Minister of Home Affairs You are wasting your time and the House's who, I think, is having a short nap at the time as well by mentioning something which moment. (Ketawa) has already been discussed and disposed of. We are now debating this particular Motion In this case, Sir, I would like to refer to introduced by the Honourable Member for what the Honourable Prime Minister said Kota Melaka that the Essential (Security during the recent Third Malaysian Law Con- Cases) Regulations, 1975 be repealed. So, ference that the country and he as the Prime carry on and confine your remarks to this Minister were upholding the rule of law and matter or the issue before the House now. that he was proud that there are eight Minis- ters in his Cabinet who are members of the Bar. I only seek the indulgence of the Honour- Tuan Rasiah Rajasingam: Mr Speaker, Sir, able Minister of Law once again to allow the with the greatest respect .... Bar Council to study this matter further. Only two days ago, the Minister of Law said that Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Yang Berhormat he need not and was not obliged to seek the should have been present here before when views of the Bar Council. These Regulations we discussed the other law. as they are could still be amended to uphold the rule of law. I ask the Minister whether Tuan Rasiah Rajasingam: I am not talking he would give an assurance to this House, of the other law. I am just speaking on these since the members of the Bar of the States Regulations. The Member for Kota Melaka of Malaya are holding an Emergency General is asking for the repeal of the whole of the Meeting on the 10th of January, that until Emergency (Security Cases) Regulations, such time he would not enforce these parti- 1975. What I am trying to tell this House is cular Regulations as they stand. Though the that as far as the security of the country is Ministry had, after 4th of October when these concerned, I am not in a position to know Regulations come into being, accepted certain the actual situation in regard to the security amendments submitted by the Bar Council, of the country, as perhaps only the Honour- but the Bar Council still feels that these able Minister of Home Affairs knows about Regulations as they stand could be further it. But I am only asking the Minister of Law amended. As I have stated earlier, Mr Speaker, to at least accept certain views expressed by Sir, the security situation is best known to the the members of the Bar Council and the Bar Minister of Home Affairs and the Cabinet and as a whole. on which I do not think I would be able to say anything other than reading what is stated 3.49 ptg. in the newspapers as to what the exact posi- tion is. I am not asking for the repeal of the Datuk Albert Mah (Bukit Bendera): Essential (Security Cases) Regulations, 1975, (Dengan izin) Mr Speaker, Sir, never in but in the terms of the Bar Council's letter my adult life have I heard so much of addressed to the Honourable Minister of Law, exaggeration of facts and situations until I we have requested him to withold the imple- came to this House. (Ketawa) For the past mentation of the Regulations until we held 24 years I have been a Police Officer and I our Emergency General Meeting to finalise had been in the receiving end of all the our final amendments. So, until such time, I legislations relating to public safety and ask the Minister of Law internal security that have been passed in this country. I can proudly say in this House 9803 19 DISEMBER 1975 9804 loud and clear that the Police Force, the to make use of its good judgement. You must Polis Di Raja, have always executed their depend on the good judgement of the Police duties with the greatest of impartiality. Force in implementing these laws. You must I would like to say here that the Polis give them trust. Unless you trust them it Di Raja are not happy to implement the laws is impossible to implement these laws. that are passed relating to internal security. But what can they do with a serious security The Honourable Member for Kota Melaka situation like this? If this motion is not gave instances of Police brutality and impar- rejected today, the Honourable Opposition tiality. I would like to remind this House— Members would not be able to sit in this what about the thousands and millions of House and shout as loud as they are doing cases that have been disposed of happily and in all probability they would be some- and impartially? Why are these not men- where else creeping under some holes trying tioned? Of course, the police are not perfect. to run away from the situation. There may be mistakes. It is up to the courts to decide. If there are mistakes, let us bring Tuan Yang di-Pertua: How many feet them up for attention so that they can be down? (Ketawa) attended to. The Honourable Member spoke of human Datuk Albert Mah: May be 8 feet down rights. Yes, we must have human rights. and not 6 feet. Legislation relating to public When people who have no human rights in safety and internal security passed by this their hearts want to destroy this country.. House have always been implemented by are we going to apply the same human members of the Polis Diraja and being rights to deal with them. We must have new the executives they have to come face to laws to deal with such people. They have no face with the enemies. How can you expect regard for the welfare and safety of others, them to fight for you if you do not give them All they are interested in is their ideology. effective laws to protect themselves. They A perfect Utopia is in the mind only. cannot afford to go out and be shot at with their eyes blind-folded. People are scared to Tuan Yang di-Pertua, a perfect society give evidence because the enemies that we exists only in the mind. But in reality you face today are quite different from those we can never achieve it. But we must dream of faced from 1948 to 1960. Surely you have that Utopia, otherwise life is not worth living. seen for yourself how the Chief Police Officer of Perak had been shot at and killed. There Suggestions were made in the laws to allow are many other incidents where our soldiers police to detain people for sixty days. If there and policemen have been ambushed and is such provision then we will have to killed. Are we going to sit down quietly and exercise it with great care, I am quite sure wait for more killings to happen before we that the Honourable Minister responsible will act positively? No! assure this House that the Police and the people responsible will take the necessary It is now that we must act positively. It is precautions in ensuring that the innocent now we have to arrest the situation. How people do not suffer. There are situations are we going to go about it? Give the police when the Police require time in order to proper powers. The important thing to obtain information from the people whom remember is that we must trust the police. they detained. I can speak with my past They have withstood three very serious experience of 24 years, that there is no need situations. First the Emergency, second the to be brutal to anybody in conducting police Confrontation and lastly the May 13, 1969 investigations. But when dealing with people riots. They have withstood all these serious who are determined to overthrow the Govern- situations with distinction. ment by force, the Police requires much more If I had been required to obey every law time for such investigations. during my past 24 years of service without using common sense, judgement and feelings Tuan Lim Kit Siang: Tuan Yang di- for the human being, the areas of the country in which I have served during those trouble- Pertua, on a point of order. some time would be quite chaotic. There are situations where we have to allow the police Tuan Yang di-Pertua: What order? 9805 19 DISEMBER 1975 9806

Tuan Lim Kit Siang: On a point of clari- the Police Force we hope and we are certain fication, Sir. that we will win this war against our enemy, and I do sincerely hope that when the time Tuan Yang di-Pertua: What clarification comes for the Honourable Members of the Yang Berhormat? Opposition to act, they will act, and act sincerely with the Government in our fight Tuan Lim Kit Siang: On what I said just against our common enemy. now. To elucidate what I said just now. 3.57 ptg. Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Ahli Yang Ber- hormat hendak clarify ucapannya? Tuan S. Samy Vellu (Sungai Siput): (Dengan izin) Tuan Yang di-Pertua, I stand Tuan Lim Kit Siang: Yes, he was referring to oppose the Motion presented by the to what I said just now, which is not very Honourable Member for Kota Melaka. correct—about the detention for sixty days. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, we have heard very I did refer to it but that is no more in the loud cries in this House from our brothers amended Regulations. So I hope that next from the Opposition on the introduction of time the former Chief Police Officer of an Ordinance to try security cases in our Penang will know what he is talking about. country. I am sure that the external fabrics of the Ordinance looks quite tough, but I am Datuk Albert Mah: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sure that the interior contains matters relating I know what I am talking about. The only to the security of the ordinary citizens of this thing is I do not exaggerate facts. country.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Both Honourable Tuan Yang di-Pertua, before we proceed Members know what they are talking about. any further, one has to realise the circum- (Ketawa) Carry on! stances and the situation that have demanded the introduction of these Security Regulations. The country is surrounded within and with- Datuk Albert Mah: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, out by enemies who wish to destroy the one other point that was brought up by Ahli democratic machinery of our Government Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka is in connection with hooded witnesses. Now, one and the peace and harmony of the country. must appreciate that these subversive elements They have created fears into the mind of the and also the Communists who try to topple ordinary man to suspect whether there is any this Government are so well-organised, clever, security for the ordinary citizens of this sly and cunning that they instil a great fear country. among the people. We will never get any Tuan Yang di-Pertua, we have fought for evidence from the people unless some form twelve years a guerrilla warfare, spending of protection is given, and nobody would more than a million dollars a day. We have disclose to us who these people are, with the lost so many of our beloved ones. Why? I result that we will be fighting a war blind- ask everyone of the Opposition. Was that a folded. We cannot afford to go on like this toy war? No! It was a fight to establish a forever. If no action is taken to strengthen democratic process in this country. We were Police powers, then riots will take place and fighting someone who was part of us, who this country will be chaotic. I honestly would remained with us, who knew what we were, like Honourable Members from the Opposi- and the war lasted for twelve years. Even tion sitting across there to realise the serious during the Emergency the Government did security situation existing now. The situation not introduce such Regulations. But today of 1948 and today is completely different. our brothers from the Opposition say that we We are now facing an enemy who is much have introduced the Regulations which harm more dedicated, better armed and far more human rights. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, the sophisticated in their approach to try to win Government—be it the Barisan Nasional the hearts and minds of the people by Government or the Alliance Government— misleading them—unless something is being have never thought of introducing any done quickly. I am glad the Government has legislation which is going to deprive the rights given approval to enlarge the Police Force by of the ordinary citizens. They have introduced another 20,000, and with the enlargement of these Regulations because the situation has 9807 19 DISEMBER 1975 9808 demanded such a legislation. If the situation to take care if we just allow the matters to had not demanded such a legislation, I do not go on as they are now. It is the right of the think we would have introduced such a Government to see that every ordinary citizen legislation. in this country is guarded from this sort of brutality. One thing, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, is that even during the Emergency the Government Tuan Yang di-Pertua, if anyone had the did not introduce it. Why? We have to ask courtesy to visit the General Hospital two ourselves this question. During the Emergency months ago, he would be able to understand we at least knew who our enemies were, Tuan what is human right. The human right which Yang di-Pertua. We knew for sure how they they are crying for today was not there. How lived, how they fought. We at least knew with many of them—over 40 of them—were made whom we were fighting a war in the jungles. victims of hand grenades. Up to today, I It was some sort of a guerrilla war. But the have not seen anyone in this House who got war of today is entirely different from those up to condemn such activities, but they are days. Today we are unable to identify who very frightened to see that a law is introduced is the man next to us. Now, what are we going by which something is going to happen to to do? And we will not even know what the them. man next to us is going to do within the Tuan Yang di-Pertua, we talk of human next few minutes. The range of subversive rights. These Regulations are also another activities, the amount of killing of our high- step to ensure human rights for the ordinary ranking officers and policemen are the work citizen and innocent human being who faces of the elements who are within our midst. brutality from the urban guerrillas of today. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, in the olden days Tuan Yang di-Pertua, if a responsible during the Emergency, battles were fought Government is going to sit idle and watch face to face in many cases. At least we were what is happening, I am sure the people who careful when we went into the jungle. But have voted this Government to office will today with the urban guerrillaism—we are not have any faith in it and, therefore, I fighting people who are well-dressed, with the think that these Security Regulations are a best armoury in their possession, with fast right move and a right move and a right move. cars and many tactics and facilities and they are creating urban guerrillaism today. How (Tuan Azahari bin Md. Taib mem- can the Government encounter this problem pengerusikan Mesyuarat) until and unless we have a tough legislation or an instrument to overcome this problem? 4.03 ptg. I am sure some would suggest that the existing legal provisions are sufficient to Datuk Haji Shafie bin Abdullah (Baling): tackle this problem, but cases have proved, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bangun untuk Tuan Yang di-Pertua, that it is impossible to membantah di atas satu cadangan di hadapan combat these activities with the present Dewan sekarang ini untuk membatalkan legal provisions we have in our hands. So Peraturan-peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes Kese- the only alternative is to do something tough lamatan), 1975. so that the ordinary man before us will be Saya berfikir bahawa sekiranya saya men- sure that his life is protected. diam diri tidak berkata sesuatu manakala Tuan Yang di-Pertua, I am sure that this cadangan seperti ini dikemukakan kepada is not the intention of the Government to rakyat untuk memutuskannya, maka saya fix up everyone who is suspected of being kelak akan ditafsirkan sebagai seorang yang involved in such activities. But this is to make tidak bertanggungjawab terhadap masyarakat them understand that anyone who intends dan masa hadapan Malaysia. Demokrasi ber- to fool the Government cannot get too far parlimen di dalam negara ini telah diwujud- away. kan untuk rakyat di bumi Malaysia ini yang tersangat cinta dan ingin kepada keamanan Tuan Yang di-Pertua, we have heard the dan perdamaian. Undang-undang dan per- brothers of the Opposition very well. We have aturan-peraturan yang mendokong kepada also heard what they said about human rights. cita-cita luhor untuk memberi izin But I want to ask our brothers from the dan kesempatan serta hak kepada rakyat Opposition whose human right are we going hidup dengan perasaan yang lega dan tidak 9809 19 DISEMBER 1975 9810 cuak kepada mana-mana pihak dan golongan dapat membuka jalan kepada saya dan rakan yang hendak menggugat keselamatan telah saya dan seluruh rakyat bekerja untuk ke- dicipta dari semasa ke semasa. Dengan ada- baikan bersama memandang bahawa Undang- nya undang-undang dan peraturan yang di- undang Peraturan-peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes kuatkuasakan, dijunjung dan dikawal, maka Keselamatan), 1975 adalah suatu pengorbanan menjadilah negara ini syurga kepada mereka rakyat yang tidak ternilai harganya semata- yang menghormati undang-undang dan per- mata hendak menjamin keselamatan negara aturan. Tradisi yang diperturunkan dari abad dan keselamatan rakyat. Batalnya peraturan- ke abad, dari dahulu hingga kepada detik ini peraturan ini bermakna akan lucutlah kelak telah tergoncang hari ini dengan adanya tembok-tembok yang sekarang ini wujud suara-suara yang menyatakan konon demi mempertahankan hak-hak kebebasan rakyat keagungan demokrasi segala undang-undang Malaysia daripada hidup dengan aman dan dan peraturan-peraturan yang telah tercipta damai. Kepada mereka yang ingin hendak guna mempertahankan kemuliaan dan kebe- memporak-perandakan negara ini dan hendak basan manusia itu hendak dirobohkan dalam melemparkan ke dalam kegelincahan kacau- perdamaian hidup. Kalau pagar-pagar yang bilau, maka mereka akan sentiasa menyuara- mengelilingi kampung dan rumah untuk kan supaya Undang-undang Peraturan ini menyekatkan musuh daripada bermaharaja- dipadamkan. Apa yang dijalankan dalam lela sudah hendak dicabut, maka kelak akan negara Malaysia ini adalah sejajar dengan kembalilah semula keadaan hidup manusia tujuan-tujuan hendak memperlindungi rakyat dalam ketakutan, tergugat dengan angkara Malaysia, daripada ancaman-ancaman yang yang hendak bergerak untuk memukul mati hendak menjahanamkan penghidupan dan kebebasan rakyat. Undang-undang di dalam keselamatan rakyat sesuai dengan persetujuan perbincangan ini telahpun dijalankan di hak-hak asasi manusia sebagaimana yang dalam negara ini telah memberi keteguhan dipersetujui oleh seluruh dunia dalam Majlis hati setiap rakyat untuk bergerak bebas men- Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu. jalankan sebarang pekerjaan yang sah. Tidak ada sebarang sungutan selama ini daripada Saya masih teringat lagi keadaan seperti golongan rakyat yang cinta kepada per- yang berlaku pada hari yang bersejarah hitam damaian dan sentiasa bergerak menurut 13hb Mei tidak akan berlaku lagi hendaknya undang-undang bahawa Undang-undang selagi Undang-undang dan Peraturan-per- Peraturan-peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes Ke- aturan (Kes-kes Keselamatan), 1975 ini ber- selamatan), 1975 ini telah menekan kuatkuasa. Saya masih teringat lagi titik-titik dan mengongkong kebebasan rakyat, hitam yang berlaku dalam masa Malaya malahan di sebalik itu selama undang- dalam pemerintahan singkat oleh Pasukan- undang ini berkuatkuasa keadaan negara pasukan Bintang Tiga selepas Malaya ditakluk telah dapat ditadbirkan dengan lebih kemas balik oleh Askar-askar Berikat. Siapa yang dan teratur. Hanya kepada mereka yang mem- tidak seram dan takut mengingatkan kembali punyai tujuan yang tertentu selain daripada pembicaraan-pembicaraan yang dibuat dalam mendokong keamanan dan perdamaian sahaja hutan rimba dan di pekan di mana askar- yang ingin hendak mengoyak undang-undang askar Bintang Tiga telah membawa pencalun- atau peraturan ini. pencalun kononnya hendak dihukum oleh mahkamah pengadilan. Apakah pengadilan Di dalam undang-undang dan peraturan yang kejam seperti itu yang pernah berlaku yang ternyata dengan jelas segala tujuan dan di dalam sejarah Malaya di atas bumi suci penangkapan, penahanan di atas seseorang Malaya sesuai dengan kehendak rakyat yang disyaki melakukan sesuatu kesalahan Malaysia sekarang. Hukuman mati dengan keselamatan boleh ditangkap tanpa waran dan tidak ada juri, tidak ada ulang-bicara dan boleh ditahan dalam jagaan polis sekian masa. hukuman mati itu hanya dengan pukulan Perokelamasi pembicaraan dengan diberi batang-batang cangkul di atas kepala manusia peruntukan-peruntukan khas kerana pem- yang tidak berdosa. Kita tidak ingin segala- bicaraan kes-kes keselamatan pemeriksaan segala yang pernah berlaku itu berulang kali saksi-saksi di bawah hal-hal keadaan khas semata-mata kerana kononnya hendak mem- dan hak-hak rayuan di atas hukuman- beri kebebasan kepada rakyat bertindak. hukuman yang dikenakan. Kepada saya Untuk kesejahteraan rakyat marilah kita sebagai rakyat yang sentiasa patuh kepada seluruhnya mempertahankan Undang-undang undang-undang dan peraturan negara yang Keselamatan ini supaya terjamin wujud dalam cinta kepada keamanan, keamanan itu telah bidang keadilan dan undang-undang negara. 9811 19 DISEMBER 1975 9812

4.08 ptg. I shall contend, Mr Speaker, Sir, in con- clusion later on, that I am not satisfied that Tuan Leo Moggie anak Iroke (Kanowit): these three questions are adequately answered. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya berdiri untuk menyokong Usul yang dikemukakan oleh Ahli Mr Speaker, Sir, not many people quarrel Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka dan saya with the proposition that the preservation of minta izin memberi ucapan campur dalam national security is a paramount concern of bahasa Inggeris. any government. Any government anywhere in the world must necessarily be obliged to (Dengan izin) Mr Speaker, Sir, in speaking enforce stern action against internal enemies in support of the Motion that is being moved of the State. Great powers, Sir, are sought by the Member for Kota Melaka, I should under these Regulations and those powers, I like to make some points clear before I go admit, can certainly be usefully used to further in view of some of the comments that preserve security. They can also, and this is have been raised by some of the previous the danger, be grossly abused if those who speakers: implement them and those responsible for (1) I like to make it very clear that in enforcing them, do not take the trouble to supporting this Motion, we are no sup- maintain the highest standards of impartiality. porters of insurgent forces. In the wrong hands, they become lethal weapons against the common man. The (2) That in supporting this Motion, we also assurances the public must seek, Sir—not in recognise the responsibility of the words, but in concrete actions—are many. Government to look after community interest. Can we be reasonably assured that these Regulations will not lead to possible arrests (3) In supporting this Motion, we must also of Opposition politicians—those of opposing observe the general tendency of Govern- political views from those in power? Can we ment and big organisations, sometimes be sufficiently assured that these Regulations to increase their powers at the expense will, in fact, not lead to the emergence of a of the ordinary small man. society of informers? Can we be assured that Mr Speaker, Sir, I am no sympathiser there will be no fattening of the Government of insurgent forces and I am not sanguine files on individuals regardless of whether they enough in believing that there are not others have any connection with subversion? Can we in this country who represent abiding insur- be sufficiently assured, Sir, that the net effects gent interests. This I am prepared to grant. of these Regulations will not, remembering I am also prepared to grant that on the the astuteness of communist propagandists, security situation in this country the Govern- boomerang back against the very motive and ment itself is better informed than I can ever the very objective that the Government tries hope to be. But having said all these, Sir— to achieve; making heroes out of rogues and and I am not discussing these Regulations in martyrs out of real insurgents? terms of human rights, or in terms of rights Mr Speaker, Sir, on the economic level, this under our Constitution—I am more concerned type of Regulations might chase much needed that there are honest men in this country, and both foreign and domestic capital from our there are many honest men in this country, shores. who view these Regulations with great appre- hension. There are honest men in this country I am prepared, Sir, to admit of no ambiguity who want to be reasonably satisfied in their in one score. However, ominous and terrifying minds the answers to three specific questions: the organs the Government has, they are nothing compared to what the communists (1) Whether these Regulations are neces- may have got. Their's is the ultimate. But the sary? public, I submit, would sigh with relief if the (2) Whether there are no less obnoxious Regulations contained a more concise defini- way of meeting what the Government tion of the target of the law. If the law aims hopes to meet? at urban guerillas, then say so; if the law is (3) That there are sufficient safeguards aimed at extremist insurgents, then that against possible abuses. should be made specifically so. The public would sigh with relief if the presumption of I associate myself with these men. innocence until proven guilty is restored. The 9813 19 DISEMBER 1975 9814 public would sigh with relief if while acknow- country. If legislation as of this nature is read ledging community interests and that the and interpreted by a vast majority of men guilty be punished, the innocents have a real with good intention and men of good minds, opportunity to be vindicated. The central well meaning men in this country, who want issue is, will there be adequate safeguards? to see this country succeed like everybody The job of the Government Members in this else, if these people view this legislation with House, Sir, is to oppose this Motion. That is apprehension, Sir, we might find it very their job. Their duty is to help us from the difficult to make them accept what we try to Opposition to articulate the dangers inherent make them accept. in the Regulations and to support this Motion. Now coming back to the original three The question arises because no Minister is questions that I posed, is it necessary? Is infallible. No Government is infallible. I there no lesser and less obnoxious way of personally have great faith and great trust in doing it? Have possible precautions against the Attorney-General. I have great faith in the abuses been taken? The Minister of Home Prime Minister, Sir, but in the last analysis Affairs and others in the Cabinet have ex- this faith is based on personalities. It is not plained that the security situation of this on the sacrosanct of law. The danger that we country is serious, but at least manageable. must face is this. Might not these Regulations This is as far as I can read in the papers. be wielded at some future date by men of But again like my friend, one of the previous lesser minds, and worse still, by men of lesser speakers, I have no access to the Special scruples? The question must be raised. The Branch files and I have to rely on what the intention of the Government may be good, Minister said. If it is manageable, would the that we do not quarrel, lest other speakers manageable situation require this type of law from the Government side may suspect our that we have in front of us? We have already motive. But let it never be said by our future in existence legislation under the Internal historians delving into the records of 1975 Security Act which makes detention without that the net results of our fight against the trial for indefinite periods permissible. We communists and the extremist elements of have other Acts like the Firearms Act of 1971 society was to transform ourselves into their and if these Acts are fully implemented they very mould and assume the very mantle we would seem to be quite adequate to meet the seek to destroy. Mr Speaker, Sir, more present condition that we are facing. necessary is it now for us to fight more vigorously for more equitable conditions— economic and social—rather than to resort at 4.21 ptg, every opportunity and when difficulties con- front us to a repressive type of legislation that Tuan Embong bin Yahya (Ledang): we see in front of us. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bangun menen- tang usul yang dibawa oleh Ahli Yang Ber- Mr Speaker, Sir, those who sought and hormat dari Kota Melaka tadi yang hendak struggled for our independence did so because menghapus atau membatalkan Peraturan- they hoped to create a more free and equal peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes Keselamatan), 1975. society. These leaders helped to stimulate the Saya sungguh kesihan kepada Ahli Yang minds of Malaysians at large against the Berhormat itu yang bercakap seolah-olah injustices of the colonial order. But having hendak membela rakyat, tetapi beliau tidak inspired these hopes the process cannot be tahu apakah yang terdapat dalam Akta ini checked. It must go on. Our men and women yang berkaitan dengan rakyat, Akta yang have in the past been mobilised to get rid of hendak menyelamatkan rakyat, yang termasuk these injustices. It would be unrealistic for us kawasan Ahli Yang Berhormat itu sendiri, to expect, and that they themselves cannot be dan mungkin diri Ahli Yang Berhormat itu expected, to demolish these hopes and accept sendiri, Akta yang hendak menjaga rakyat 11 what appear to them a new set of inequalities juta daripada terancam oleh orang-orang managed by men of their own kind. Neither yang bersifat kejam membawa senjatapi dan can we lay the blame on colonial bogies. membunuh. Maka orang seperti itu yang di- Malaya was independent in 1957; Malaysia belanya. Inilah orang yang dibela, segelintir was born in 1963, i.e. many years back. The manusia yang hendak mengancam keselama- net effects of our fight must be again to win tan negara, maka itulah suaranya lantang the hearts and minds of the people of this membela dalam Dewan ini. Apakah ertinya 9815 19 DISEMBER 1975 9816 ini? Seolah-olah hatinya, fikirannya serupa Dewan ini dan bercakap dengan lantang, dengan orang yang hendak membuat peker- tetapi kita hendak menangkap orang yang jaan itu sendiri. membawa senjatapi untuk membunuh orang. Sepatutnya Ahli Yang Berhormat itu mem- Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kalau kita baca Akta beri terima kasih kepada Kerajaan yang ini adakah Akta ini boleh mengambil hak mengadakan peraturan ini, sebab boleh asasi manusia? Sebagai sebuah negara yang menyelamatkan 11 juta rakyat kita yang lain. merdeka dalam Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu, Malaysia tidak lari daripada memberi hak Adakah Ahli Yang Berhormat itu sedar asasi manusia. Malaysia cukup memberi bahawa keselamatan negara kita sekarang demokrasi barangkali lebih daripada demo- terancam? Dengan sebab itulah maka perlu krasi negeri-negeri lain di dunia. Malaysia kita berjaga-jaga. Adakah dengar bahawa memberi kebebasan berfikir, kebebasan ber- rakyat sentiasa memarahi Kerajaan kerana cakap, kebebasan mengkritik seperti apa yang terlampau lunak, terlampau lembut dengan telah dicakapkan oleh Ahli Yang Berhormat kes-kes keselamatan? Berapa banyak orang dari Kota Melaka tadi, mengkritik Kerajaan yang membunuh orang dengan senjatapi ter- dan Kerajaan tidak menangkap orang yang lepas, dihukum hanya 5-6 bulan. Rakyat macam ini, tetapi Kerajaan tidak mahu me- sendiri marah kerana sepatutnya orang ini lihat orang yang mengancam orang lain dihukum mati, dihukum penjara seumur dengan senjatapi; orang yang membunuh hidup. Dan lagi kerana Kerajaan hendak orang dilepaskan dengan tidak dibicarakan. melindungi nasib 11 juta orang lain yang Adakah kerana hendak menyelamatkan kita cintakan keamanan, yang hendak hidup menghukum orang-orang yang jahat se- dengan aman damai inilah sebabnya maka umpama ini maka kita meninggalkan hak Akta ini dibuat. Akta ini bukan dibuat asasi 11 juta lagi manusia? Adakah Ahli dengan nafsu Kerajaan hendak menganiaya- Yang Berhormat itu melihat berapa banyak kan rakyat seperti yang dituduh oleh Ahli orang-orang kita yang dibunuh, Pasukan Yang Berhormat itu tadi. Apakah faedah Keselamatan kita dibunuh dengan sewenang- yang akan didapati oleh Kerajaan daripada wenangnya di tengah jalanraya dalam Akta ini kalau hendak menganiayakan bandar? Adakah Ahli Yang Berhormat itu rakyat 2-3 orang? Tidak ada apa faedah mendengar rintihan isteri yang kehilangan tetapi Kerajaan yang bertanggungjawab suami, anak yang kehilangan bapa, Pasukan kepada keamanan negara mesti mengadakan pagar-pagar yang boleh menyekat daripada Keselamatan kita yang mati? Nampaknya musuh-musuh masuk, mesti membendong beliau tidak memikirkan perkara ini, tidak anasir-anasir jahat daripada bermaharajalela. memikirkan keselamatan. Sepatutnya Ahli Kalau sekiranya tidak diadakan Peraturan - Yang Berhormat itu memberi terima kasih peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes Keselamatan) se- kepada Kerajaan. Kalau tidak mahu memberi umpama ini, maka Kerajaan akan lebih terima kasih kepada Kerajaan pun berilah berat dituduh mencuaikan keamanan negara. terima kasih kepada Pasukan Keselamatan Apakah kalau keamanan negara lebih ter- yang menjaga, termasuk kawasan Ahli Yang ancam, rakyat hidup lebih rasa dukacita dan Berhormat itu sendiri supaya orangnya boleh rasa takut melihat ayahnya mati di tengah tidur dengan nyenyak, boleh berniaga, anak- jalan, maka ini menjadi satu kesukaan kepada anak boleh belajar, petani-petani boleh pergi pihak Pembangkang. Adakah ini merupakan ke sawah. Akan tetapi, sebaliknya me- satu demokrasi kerana tidak menangkap ngencam; minta dihapuskan undang-undang orang-orang yang membuat salah, dan tidak yang boleh menyelamatkan negara, yang mengadakan peraturan-peraturan yang ketat boleh menahan daripada orang-orang jahat kerana menahan daripada membuat ke- bermaharajalela dengan menggunakan sen- salahan maka itu merupakan satu demokrasi? jatapi untuk membunuh. Undang-undang ini Saya rasa Ahli Yang Berhormat itu sendiri bukan hendak menangkap dengan sewenang- dapat menjawabnya. wenangnya orang yang membuat kesalahan. Ada dinyatakan dengan terang di sini iaitu Kita bukan menafikan adanya Pembang- orang-orang yang bersabit dengan kes kese- kang, kita bukan menafikan adanya hak lamatan atau kesalahan keselamatan yang di bersuara, hak mengkritik bahkan kita me- bawah Akta Keselamatan, yang di bawah lihat berapa banyak orang yang mengkritik Akta Senjatapi, bukan kita hendak menang- Kerajaan tidak pun ditangkap, tidak pun di- kap orang yang bawa fail masuk ke dalam penjara dan tidak pun dihukum, tetapi kita 9817 19 DISEMBER 1975 9818 tidak mahu melihat orang yang menggunakan orang ramai yang boleh musuh itu menge- kesempatan daripada lunaknya peraturan tahui siapa yang memberi keterangan. Ada- Kerajaan mengambil nyawa orang dengan kah yang dikehendaki oleh Ahli Yang Ber- sewenang-wenangnya, bermaharajalela di hormat di sini, seorang saksi tidak berani negeri ini. Kita biasa dengar semua Parlimen datang ke hadapan? Apa fikiran kita kalau ada Pembangkang, semua negara ada Pem- sekiranya sebuah negara membicarakan ke- bangkang, kita boleh membangkang me- salahan tidak ada saksi yang berani datang nyuarakan sesuatu masaalah yang berselisih ke hadapan? Inilah yang dikatakan hilang faham dari segi politik dan fikiran, tetapi demokrasi, kerana jika seorang saksi dilibat- hampir-hampir ke semua Pembangkang dalam kan terang-terang maka mereka akan diugut, dunia ini apabila sesuatu perkara yang mereka akan dibalas dengan kejam. Jadi ada- mengenai keselamatan negara, mereka tidak lah adil bagi Kerajaan untuk menyelamatkan pula membangkang, malah mereka menyo- saksi-saksi memberi penerangan dengan adil kong bersama-sama dengan Kerajaan samada dilindungi mereka itu dengan apa cara yang hidup atau mati. Tetapi anih Pembangkang boleh seperti yang disebut dalam undang- di negara kita tidak bersama-sama ber- undang ini. Lagi pun hukuman yang dijalan- bertanggungjawab. Keadaan negara ter- kan di sini bukanlah semuanya dihukum ancam dan Kerajaan berkehendakkan rakyat mati, bukanlah semuanya dihukum penjara bersama-sama dengan Kerajaan menjaga ke- seumur hidup, tetapi mengikut keadaan- amanan maka dengan sebab itulah rakyat keadaan seperti yang disebutkan di dalam memilih kita menjadi wakilnya di dalam peraturan ini, kalau ada yang dipenjara, Parlimen ini, tetapi pihak Pembangkang penjaralah had maksima; kalau dirotan, tidak menyokong sebarang Akta yang hendak rotanlah maksima; kalau dihukum penjara memberi keamanan kepada rakyat. Ini satu seumur hidup, hukumlah penjara seumur perkara yang anih sekali. hidup dan kalau kena hukuman itu di bawah kes mati, hukumlah mati, biar dia mati. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sekali lagi Ahli Yang Semua negara membuat begini. Berhormat itu tadi membawa perkara Datuk James Wong dan sekali lagi membangkitkan Hari ini kita membaca suratkhabar se- bahawa Kerajaan tidak adil menangkap orang yang hendak meragut nyawa seorang beliau. Saya rasa orang Sarawak sendiri lebih Presiden Amerika, President Ford, meng- mengerti daripada apa yang diketahui oleh gunakan senjatapi telah dihukum penjara Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka. seumur hidup. Apakah ini tidak adil atau Kalau sekiranya Kerajaan tidak ada bukti- Amerika telah hilang demokrasi? Bila kita bukti yang khusus yang boleh mengancam ke- buat begini, mengapa kita dituduh tidak adil, selamatan negara Kerajaan tidak akan me- tetapi kalau negara orang membuat kita puji, nangkap beliau. Seperti contoh had ini Wakil bagus, negara itu menjaga hak-haknya, tetapi dari Kota Melaka ada di sini, beliau tidak ter- kalau negara kita sendiri, mereka menuduh libat dengan sebarang perkara-perkara yang Kerajaan tidak berdemokrasi, menuduh Kera- mengancam negara, beliau free tidak di- jaan menindas. Siapa yang ditindas oleh tangkap. Tetapi kalau hari ini juga dia mem- Kerajaan? Selain daripada orang-orang yang buat sesuatu perkara yang boleh meng- berniat jahat? Mereka ini ialah segelintir ancam negara maka tidak syak lagi Kera- manusia yang tidak mahu memikirkan nyawa jaan akan memberkas beliau kerana kese- orang ramai, yang tidak mahu memikirkan lamatan negara lebih daripada segala-segala- keamanan orang ramai, oleh itu adalah nya. Kerajaan tidak mengira pangkat manu- wajar mereka ini dihadapan ke muka Mah- sia, tidak mengira darjat, tidak mengira kamah, ke muka pengadilan dan mereka keturunan bangsa, sekiranya mengancam ke- adalah wajar menerima hukuman sepadan dengan apa kesalahan yang dibuatnya. selamatan negara maka adalah menjadi satu kewajipan kepada Kerajaan memberkas dan mengurung mereka itu untuk keselamatan Tuan Azahari bin Md. Taib: Sudah lebih orang lain. masa Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya rasa peraturan Tuan Embong bin Yahya: Ya, ini saya ini cukup adil kerana membicarakan orang- hendak tutup. Oleh sebab itu, Tuan Yang di- orang yang dituduh atau membunuh itu Pertua, saya minta Yang Berhormat itu patut- dengan saksinya tidak didedahkan di hadapan lah berfikir kalau sekiranya ada perkara 9819 19 DISEMBER 1975 9820 yang tidak disetujui dalam sesuatu Akta The inner government with its emergency hendak dipinda sedikit, hendak dibetulkan powers is an anomaly, if we maintain that sedikit barangkali menasabah, ada berfikiran, this is a democratic society. It would appear tetapi di sini ia minta dibatalkan terus. Sebab to be a challenge to parliamentary supermacy. itulah saya rasa saya kasihan kepada Ahli Indeed, if Parliament is to be supreme, such Yang Berhormat itu yang bercakap tidak powers should be reviewed from time to time sesuai dengan hatinya. Dengan sebab itu, in Parliament to seek its approval or revo- saya menentang keras usul Ahli Yang Ber- cation. But to allow the emergency powers to hormat itu. be extended indefinitely is untenable and un- justified. Is there a case, a need for these new 4.34 ptg. Regulations? Dr Chen Man Hin (Seremban): (Dengan I would like to cite here a case of a izin) Tuan Yang di-Pertua, I rise to support famous trial that occurred during the the Motion for the repeal of the Essential Emergency of 1948-1960—that of one Lee (Security Cases) Regulations, 1975 and also Peng Tai alias Lee Meng—better known as the Essential (Security Cases) (Amendment) Lee Meng—versus the Government. At the Regulations, 1975. height of the insurgency of 1948-1960, there The Regulations are obnoxious and are was this trial of Lee Meng who was found against the spirit of the Constitution which in possession of a hand grenade. She was guarantees fundamental rights of the indivi- tried in a court of law at that time and was dual like freedom from arbitrary arrest and ably represented by the late D. R. Seeniva- access to a proper trial in a court of law. sagam. Her case went even up to the Privy The Regulations undermine the Rule of Council. Law, as has been stated by prominent law- At that time, the situation was even more yers and, if allowed to prevail will gradually serious. The guerilla war was in full swing. erode the fabric of civilised society like a Killing occurred daily. At one stage there cancer eating away the vitals of a nation. was about 8,000 armed guerillas in the The Regulations are the brainchild of a jungles. There are about 3,000 now, I was government which has become accustomed told in this House, along the Malaysia Thai to a situation generated by themselves by the border, although there are no known figures passage of a string of Emergency Regulations, of the number of guerillas in urban areas. Proclamations and Ordinances, which have imposed restrictions on liberty, freedom and The Lee Meng trial was conducted at a other rights. Restrictions on freedom are time of full Emergency where the situation the order of the day, so much so that was more tense and more serious. There is, democracy, liberty and equality have become therefore, no reason now why similar trials strange and new concepts. It shows that the cannot be held in a normal court of law with abnormal has become normal because of habi- full legal representation and giving of evidence tation where the norms have become by witnesses in person and without secrecy abnormal. It is not surprising that the or camouflage. If the Rule of Law could be essential regulations on security cases have upheld in those days of tension and war, it been conceived in the process of escalation can also be upheld in the conditions existing towards authoritarianism. today, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. The Emergency powers have created an The Essential (Security) Regulations, 1975 inner government with the right to enact is nothing more than an attempt to legalise laws contrary to the spirit of the Constitu- kangaroo court trials where the accused tion all in the name of the aim to supress are tried without regard for the law. In subversion and to counter an insurgency trials under the Regulations, the accused is problem. The Government is relying more denied of the fundamental right of being and more on its Emergency powers to deal innocent unless proved otherwise. He is also with problems like a sick man relying on a denied of the right to know his accusers a crutch to move about. It may be an easy and identify them because the Regulations way out, but certainly not the right way in state that the prosecution witness may "give the opinion of the D.A.P., for unless the evidence in such a manner as he shall not root causes are determined, no problems can be visible to the accused or his counsel, but be solved. shall be visible to the court; and further if 9821 19 DISEMBER 1975 9822 the witness fears that his voice may be list" placing his economic future and live- recognised, his evidence may be given through lihood in jeopardy. If there is to be fairness, an interpreter or other officer of the court people say, then defence witnesses should also be allowed the freedom to opt for evi- dence under disguise. Another startling fact about the Regulations is that hearsay evidence is admissible. With the Essential (Security Cases) Regu- Regulation 21 (3) states that secondary lations, it is quite likely that the innocent documentary evidence shall be admissible, may suffer and be convicted for offences and hearsay evidence including a statement which they never committed. made to a Police officer not below the rank I wish to cite a famous case that occurred of an Inspector by a person other than before. The Dryeyfus case was one where accused, may at the discretion of the court an innocent man was condemned to imprison- be upheld or be admitted. ment on Devil's Island. In 1894, Alfred Dryeyfus, a French soldier, was found guilty Telephone conversation intercepted or of treason, and the only evidence was a listened to by a Police officer shall be admis- letter of state secrets with writing similar to sible in evidence without the originator of the his, but not actually his, and some valueless information being required to give evidence, documents presented by a War Minister keen Tuan Yang di-Pertua. to see him guilty. And because of a legal All these are shocking and unbelievable. system which deems a person is guilty until Right from the beginning the accused is a proved otherwise and the absence of the Rule "dead duck". Any Tom, Dick and Harry of Law, Dryeyfus was found guilty. It can be his accuser, and one can well imagine was only in 1906, 12 years later that Dryeyfus was finally vindicated and declared innocent these may turn out to be people with old with the help of loyal friends. scores to settle with the accused, or people who are unscrupulous mercenaries whose This famous case is mentioned to show the occupation is bounty hunting. Rumours may untold damage that can be done with the also be interpreted as hearsay evidence to passage of unconstitutional laws which pro- turn against the accused. If there are no vide no safeguards for the individual. Doubt- legal safeguards for the accused and flimsy less in the months to come, the Dryeyfus evidence is admissible, what is the point of syndrome will catch on and the innocent going through the whole farce of a mock will suffer. trial, because the accused will have to face the firing squad anyway? Tuan Yang di-Pertua, the D.A.P. is firmly convinced that the Essential (Security Cases) Tuan Yang di-Pertua, doubtless the Regulations will pose a grave threat to the Government must have been inspired by the well-being of an orderly society. On our Ku Klux Klan of America, where hooded side we are more keen than anybody else self-righteous klansmen hound their victims to have a just, more equal and more orderly with hoods covering their faces. Hooded society. witnesses may add drama to the proceedings, At the Malaysian Law Conference in but they will definitely undermine the October this year, the Solicitor-General, Tan meaning of law and justice. Sri Mohamed Salleh Abbas, in defending the Regulations was quoted by the Press as If prosecution witnesses can have the saying "justice cannot be solely for an privilege of being hooded, it is said that accused, we have to take into consideration witnesses for the defence should also have the interest of the community as a whole." the privilege of having their identities The Essential (Security Cases) Regulations hidden from the prosecution. With all the are already breeding an atmosphere of fear frightening and loaded laws, it will take a in society. Few dare to discuss politics very brave and loyal person or persons to step openly and even on topical subjects like foward and speak for the accused. It is on sports and current events, there is subdued the cards that defence witnesses will be conversation. Those who have complaints marked by security personnel, detained first look over their shoulders to ensure possibly, interrogated and put on the "black that no one else is listening, for who knows 9823 19 DISEMBER 1975 9824 an informer may be nearby. The Essential efforts put in these directions will bring much (Security Cases) Regulations is breeding a better results than draconian laws which more dangerous element. It is breeding a will harm the nation and society. nation of spies and informers with the vile purpose of informing on their neighbours Lastly, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, the D.A.P. and earning bounty money. With hoods or calls for the immediate revocation of the disguise, their identities are safe, and this Essential (Security Cases) Regulations. But if fast growing profession will attract the dregs the Regulations are allowed to remain in law, then the Government would have not of society, the drug addicts and pedlars who only pressed the "panic" button but it would want money. also have pressed a "self-destruct" button, Far more ominous is the strong possibility because these Regulations will undermine that these Essential (Security Cases) Regu- democracy, they will undermine the judicial lations will compromise the judiciary. It will system and also the very foundations of the erode the prestige and the integrity of the society. judiciary. Where is justice when there is no Rule of Law? Hearsay evidence and 4.47 ptg. hooded witnesses, whose credibility is Tuan Mohamed Sopiee bin Sheikh Ibrahim in doubt, are not the stuff of modern law. (Kepala Batas): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, se- Such conditions were acceptable in the law- belum saya melanjutkan ucapan saya, saya less past, but certainly not in the 20th harap dapat Tuan Yang di-Pertua izinkan Century. It is eminently unfair for the saya sulam di sana sini sedikit sebanyak Government to burden the judiciary with dalam bahasa Inggeris, kalau perlu, sebab these Regulations. To do so, would be to banyak hujah-hujah yang dikemukakan itu pervert the whole judicial system and under- ialah dalam bahasa Inggeris. mine one of the three foundations of demo- cracy—legislature, executive and judiciary— Saya rasa usul yang dikemukakan oleh and all society may come crashing down. Yang Berhormat Ketua Pembangkang mem- beri kesempatan kepada kita dalam Dewan Tuan Yang di-Pertua, there is increasing ini dan juga kepada rakyat jelata di seluruh evidence that the Government has an insur- negeri sedar bahawa ada keraguan di sini gency problem in its hands. However, in fikiran orang ramai tentang peraturan-pera- trying to get to grips with the situation, the turan yang telah digezetkan itu. Bagi setengah last thing it should do is to press the panic kita yang tidak begitu faham mengenai button and enact laws such as the Essential undang-undang perlu juga saya tarik per- (Security Cases) Regulations, 1975. The hatian bahawa apa yang ditimbangkan ialah D.A.P. has brought out the dangers inherent bukan Akta atau Undang-undang yang dibuat in the Regulations. oleh Dewan Yang Berhormat ini, akan tetapi yang dibincangkan ialah peraturan- The answer lies elsewhere in the political, peraturan yang dibuat secara administrative economic and social fields. During the oleh pegawai-pegawai Yang Berhormat Men- guerilla war of 1948 to 1960, the insurgency teri atau Kerajaan mahupun berasaskan was draining the economic life blood of the undang-undang yang telah diluluskan akan country. Millions of dollars were spent tetapi tanpa kebenaran dan persetujuan daily and would have bankrupted the country Dewan ini. Ini satu perkara yang penting dari if the war had carried on indefinitely. The segi keutuhan Parlimen dan juga berkait turning point came not as a result of success dengan undang-undang yang akhirnya semua in the jungle warfare, but more because of mesti mengalir daripada pusat kekuasaan di a political decision by the British colonial mana wakil-wakil berkumpul di sini. authorities. They finally became wise enough to accept and give what the people wanted— Saya sendiri sebagai seorang yang selalu independence. With independence in the mengambil berat berkenaan dengan hak ke- people's hands, the main purpose of guerrilla bebasan asasi, sedikit-sebanyak sama berpen- warfare was removed, and thereafter the war dapat dan berfikiran dengan usul-usul yang petered out. Likewise, the Government should sudah dikemukakan di negeri ini, bukan study the grievances of the people and redress pada hari ini sahaja Yang Berhormat Ketua the injustices and inequalities in the political Pembangkang, akan tetapi sudah sedar economic, social and cultural areas. The dalam perbincangan yang telah berjalan 9825 19 DISEMBER 1975 9826 khasnya dilingkungan ahli-ahli Undang- langgar orang, mereka nampak dan tahu undang (members of the Bar) dan sebagainya. nombornya, tapi apabila diminta menjadi Jadi satu element yang kita mesti timbang saksi: saya nampak motorsikal sekian-sekian, dengan tenang pada hari ini ialah hakikat dan nombor sekian-sekian melanggar orang— adanya perasaan kurang senang apabila pera- tidak mahu. Setakat itupun susah. Jadi apa turan-peraturan ini dikaji dari segi amalan lagi jikalau hal yang besar-besar yang melibat- perjalanan undang-undang secara mana yang kan keselamatan diri, ugutan dan sebagainya? sudah kita amalkan selama ini yang mana Ini satu reality yang kita hadapi. kita telah agung-agungkan. I share many of the reservations of the (Dengan izin) In other words, we cannot learned members of the Bar in this country. deny the fact that some of the procedures and I share many of the reservations that have some of the methods adopted by these Regu- been raised by the Honourable Members of lations are not quite in keeping with the type the Opposition. I think they are valid, un- of practices and methods that we have been deniable. However, the problem we now face used to. Ini tidak dapat dinafikan—that can- is national security. Whether it is sufficiently not be denied. important and sufficiently demanding that we should be prepared to give the authorities Tetapi satu lagi elemen yang kita mesti who are burdened with the responsibility to mempertimbangkan ialah sebab-sebabnya protect our lives and property, to protect timbul perbuatan semacam ini terpaksa kita our independence and national integrity, our membuat pertimbangan. Dan on balance kita sovereignty, to protect our way of life, a mesti mengambil kesimpulan samada keadaan chance, though they do it under rules that we yang dihadapi oleh kita demi keselamatan are not happy about? negara (national security) memerlukan pera- turan-peraturan ini supaya membolehkan per- Saya sebagai seorang diri, sebagai seorang bicaraan dijalankan dan hukuman-hukuman intellectual dan seorang yang mendokong dapat dijatuhkan pada mereka yang dituduh cita-cita kebebasan asasi, saya barangkali secara undang-undang dan peraturan yang tertarik menyokong usul supaya peraturan ini terdapat ini. Atau sebaliknya, kita juga dapat dihapuskan. Akan tetapi, sebaliknya sebagai dalam pertimbangan-pertimbangan ini samada seorang Ahli Parlimen yang mewakili beribu- setakat ini di mana Parlimen sendiri telah ribu rakyat, saya terpaksa pula menanya, meluluskan undang-undang Internal Security berpakat dan berunding serta mendapatkan Act yang memberi kuasa kepada pihak buah fikiran atau opinion mereka. And on the pemerintah, bertindak, menangkap dan me- basis of general consensus of my constituents, ngurung orang-orang yang dianggap mer- I am of the view that the vast majority of the bahaya kepada keselamatan negara. Tetapi people are concerned more with security, more setakat yang kita tahu, pihak Pembangkang with their safety. These are simple people sendiri selalu apabila dapat kesempatan who do not know about the niceties about sahaja, mendesak, kenapa orang-orang ini freedom, of the law and all the other things ditahan dan tidak dibicarakan, itu satu pada that you and I talk about—perhaps only of hemat saya, kita puas hati dengan Internal their own interest. Other than that they know Security Act ini sebagai satu undang-undang nothing at all. They want to make sure that yang diluluskan oleh Parlimen cukup dan the Communists will not take over. They lengkap untuk menjaga keselamatan dengan want to make sure that we can stop the menangkap dan menahan orang tanpa bicara Communists from going round shooting at sungguhpun ada ulangkaji (review) dan se- people at random, as they like. They want to bagainya. Kita puas hati setakat itu dan tidak make sure our roads and our communications lagi mendesak supaya diadakan perbicaraan, are protected and preserved. They want to tetapi kalau kita mendesak juga, barangkali make sure that they get the supplies that they inilah yang timbul, kerana pada reality kepada have been used to and that they will continue kejadian yang sebenarnya berlaku di sekeliling to get them—that they will get their food, masyarakat kita sendiri, kalau rasa malu, vegetables, etc. They want to make sure that malulah. Adalah susah untuk orang ramai they can go about their business without let tampil kehadapan dengan perasaan berani and hindrance. And on that alone, they will dan sanggup memberi penerangan. Jangan give the Government their support. And I, as kata kepada perkara yang besar-besar, yang their spokesman, therefore, against my own melibatkan jiwa, tapi kalau motorsikal me- intellectual feelings, feel it is my duty to 9827 19 DISEMBER 1975 9828 express the views of the people, of the vast 5.00 ptg. majority of the people of this country, to give the Government an opportunity to create the Raja Nasron bin Raja Ishak (Kuala kind of conditions that will then make it Selangor): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, daripada possible for us to restore the freedoms which masa saya dapat mengetahui berkenaan we value. In other words, saya percaya bahawa dengan usul yang dikemukakan oleh Ahli peraturan ini ialah peraturan sementara. Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka untuk Bukan satu Akta atau satu Undang-undang membatalkan Essential (Security Cases) yang kekal yang kita mahu pertahankan Regulations, 1975 itu, telah mendatangkan selama-lama, akan tetapi satu cara sementara satu tanda tanya kepada diri saya. Saya sahaja untuk mengatasi satu keadaan yang berpendapat bahawa tentu sahaja ada per- tertentu. kara-perkara baru yang hendak dikemukakan oleh beliau, dan saya mengatakan jikalah ada Biasanya, bila pihak Pembangkang mem- perkara-perkara baru, saya akan bangun bawa usul saya hentam kuat-kuat, tetapi kali menyokong cadangan beliau itu. Tetapi apa- ini, tidak. Sebaliknya, saya mengucapkan bila saya dengar hujjah-hujjahnya, saya dapati terima kasih kepada pihak Ketua Pembang- bahawa perkara-perkara yang saya ramal- kang, kerana beliau telah membangkitkan ramalkan itu tidak ditimbulkan, kerana saya perkara yang tersemat di hati sanubari saya ramalkan beliau akan bangun dengan sendiri, dan saya tahu tersemat di hati dan mengatakan: "Tuan Speaker, saya dengan fikiran banyak orang-orang yang berfikir, sukacitanya memaklumkan bahawa semua orang yang mahu mempertahankan ke- saki-baki pengkhianat-pengkhianat negara, merdekaan, yang mahu mempertahankan kominis di dalam hutan itu telah menyerah kebebasan dan yang mahu mempertahankan diri dan dengan itu saya suka meminta supaya hak-hak asasi manusia. Akan tetapi, saya juga Essential (Security Cases) Regulations, 1975 yakin bahawa dengan cara kita membincang- dibatalkan." Saya menganggap begitu, tetapi kan secara ini pihak yang berkuasa akan balik-balik cerita lama juga iaitu cerita hero- berjaga-jaga dalam melaksanakan undang- nya, Datuk James Wong. undang ini dan mengambil perhatian atas teguran-teguran yang telah dikemukakan Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kalaulah cerita hero- supaya segala yang kita takutkan itu tidak nya Datuk James Wong ini juga dibawa ke berlaku. Itu sangat baik. dalam Dewan yang mulia ini, saya suka menyatakan bahawa adakah keselamatan Keduanya, saya juga percaya pihak sana negara lebih penting, ataupun kepentingan walaupun tidak selalu secucuk dengan kita Datuk James Wong yang lebih penting? Kita dalam perkara mempertahankan negeri ini telah melihat bahawa perajurit-perajurit kita, daripada ancaman kominis, saya percaya negarawan-negarawan kita, samada pada masa mereka itu sama dengan kita, tidak ada lepas ataupun yang ada sekarang, berkorban reservation. bukan sahaja nyawa dan jiwa mereka, tetapi berkorban masa dan perkhidmatan mereka Dengan itu, saya berharap apabila kita untuk mempertahankan kedaulatan negara ini. sudah habis berbahas dalam soal ini dan Di samping itu ada segelintir kecil James mengemukakan fikiran kita, barangkali Ketua Wong seperti mana yang diperkatakan oleh Pembangkang tarik balik usulnya itu supaya Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka dapat kita buktikan; tidak kira Barisan hendak mempertahankannya, dan tidakkah Nasional, tidak kira DAP, tidak kira Pekemas, Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka sedar tetapi semua parti di dalam Parlimen ini bahawa kita sekarang menentang musuh- menyokong Kerajaan kita, walaupun kita ada musuh dari golongan yang tidak percaya reservation dan teguran. Kita memberi pe- kepada human rights; kita hendak memper- luang kepada Kerajaan melaksanakan Rang juangkan human rights, tetapi orang yang Undang-undang ini dengan harapan bahawa hendak mempertahankan ini adalah daripada segala teguran-teguran yang telah dikemuka- golongan orang-orang yang tidak percaya kan tadi menjadi panduan untuk menjalankan kepada human rights. Kita dirasuk Rang Undang-undang ini supaya tidak akan oleh orang-orang yang berTuhankan kepada timbul benda-benda dan kejadian-kejadian iblis dan syaitan, kita melawan anti-nasional yang tidak diingini yang telah ditunjukkan yang tidak menghormati Rules of Law, tetapi dahulu. sebaliknya kita hendak mempertahankan 9829 19 DISEMBER 1975 9830 orang-orang ini. Kita hendaklah mesti me- Regulations, 1975 maka kita adakan. Kalau lawan kekerasan dengan cara kekerasan. Kita tidaklah dengan adanya undang-undang yang mesti tentang tipu helah orang-orang yang saya sebutkan tadi, saya percaya Kerajaan anti-nasional dengan kecerdikan dan kebijak- tidak akan dapat mencontrol keadaan negara sanaan kita. Saya percaya Essential (Security kita pada masa ini, sedangkan dengan adanya Cases) Regulations, 1975 yang ada sekarang Undang-undang Essential (Security Cases) adalah senjata-senjata yang boleh menentang Regulations, 1975 itu negara kita berada di orang-orang ini. dalam keadaan seperti sekarang, dan jika kita sokong usul yang dikemukakan oleh Ahli Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kalau kita renongkan Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka itu maka hujjah-hujjah yang dikemukakan oleh Ahli sudah tentu keadaan negara kita tidak dapat Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka dan dijaga dan diawasi. rakan-rakannya, kecuali seorang dua, beliau telah menggambarkan seolah-olah Kerajaan Tuan Yang di-Pertua, jadi saya berdiri di kita ini adalah Kerajaan yang zalim, Kerajaan sini untuk menyampaikan hasrat rakyat iaitu yang sentiasa hendak menangkap orang tanpa kalaulah dibuat banci di kawasan saya, ramai bicara untuk dimasukkan ke dalam detention pengundi-pengundi saya menyatakan rasa camp atau masuk ke dalam jail. Tetapi se- ketidak puas hati mereka atas undang-undang baliknya semua orang yang tidak ada kes yang ada sekarang. Sebaliknya mereka psycho boleh sedar bahawa Kerajaan kita meminta supaya Essential (Security Cases) tidak berdiam diri. Contohnya senang sahaja. Regulations ini hendaklah diperketatkan lagi Di Sarawak misalnya baru-baru ini ada supaya hantu, syaitan yang merasuk negara seorang Datuk namanya Datuk Ling di- kita ini dapat dihapuskan. Sekarang ini kita tangkap masih lagi bertolak-ansur, sungguhpun ada Essential (Security Cases) Regulations, tetapi Tuan Azahari bin Md. Taib: Ahli Yang hendaklah memperketatkan lagi undang- Berhormat, saya minta jangan menyebutkan undang sehingga tidak boleh bertolak-ansur nama orang semasa berucap. lagi. Dan ada sedikit sahaja golongan orang yang kita menganggap bahawa orang-orang ini pengkhianat, maka kita janganlah lagi Raja Nasron bin Raja Ishak: Minta maaf, berfikir dua kali, tangkap dan hantarkan Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Saya flkir hendak buat sahaja ke tempat-tempat di mana boleh kita contoh sahaja, kalau tidak boleh, tidak apa- pisahkan pembawa-pembawa kuman yang lah. menjahanamkan masyarakat kita. Itulah Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ada satu golongan sahaja, terima kasih. orang di satu tempat di Malaysia ini yang ditangkap kerana satu tuduhan, tetapi sesudah Tuan Azahari bin Md. Taib: Ahli-ahli diperiksa itu dan ini orang itu dibebaskan, Yang Berhormat, saya suka menarik per- kerana tidak ada apa-apa kesalahan. Begitu hatian berkenaan dengan waktu perbahasan juga Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka ini. Kita cuma boleh membahaskan sehingga sendiri, kalaulah Kerajaan bersikap zalim pukul 5.30 petang sahaja kerana kita harus sebagaimana yang digambarkan oleh beliau memberi masa 2 ahli lagi—satu orang dari- maka beliau tidak akan begitu bebas bercakap pada Menteri untuk menjawab dan yang menentang dan menyampaikan hujjah-hujjah- akhirnya daripada Ahli Yang Berhormat nya seperti mana yang kita dengar di dalam dari Kota Melaka, pembawa usul ini. Jadi, Dewan yang mulia ini pada hari ini dan bererti ada 2 Ahli lagi sahaja yang boleh ber- beberapa kali pada masa yang sudah-sudah. cakap. Untuk pengetahuan Ahli-ahli Yang Ini menunjukkan bahawa Kerajaan kita Berhormat, kita telah membenarkan 6 Ahli bukanlah satu Kerajaan yang hendak me- dari pihak Pembangkang bercakap dan 7 nyalahgunakan Essential (Security Cases) Ahli daripada back-benches dan saya akan Regulations, 1975, seperti yang dikatakan membenarkan 8 Ahli sahaja daripada pihak oleh beliau tadi. Kerajaan. Jadi, 6 Ahli daripada pihak Pem- bangkang boleh bercakap 7 kali iaitu dua kali Tuan Yang di-Pertua, undang-undang di- Ahli dari Kota Melaka. Ini kerana saya buat oleh kita sendiri, untuk kita supaya nampak perkara ini kena dibuat begitu rupa sesuai dengan keadaan, masa dan tempat. kerana cadangan ini datangnya dari pihak Disebabkan tempatnya dan masanya memaksa Pembangkang. Sekarang saya menjemput dari kita mengadakan Essential (Security Cases) pihak penyokong Kerajaan seorang sahaja 9831 19 DISEMBER 1975 9832

dan kemudian dari pihak Pembangkang se- terangannya dengan cara melindungi jiwa orang sahaja. Adalah menasabah pihak Pem- mereka. Dan dengan sendirinya kita akan bangkang memilih sesama sendiri, kerana dapatmenghukumkan mereka yang menjalan- selepas ini seorang lagi sahaja boleh ber- kan perkara-perkara seperti yang saya kata- cakap—(Ramai Ahli-ahli berdiri)—nanti kan tadi dan ini juga menolong menyegera- dahulu! saya belum habis lagi. Kerana kan kes-kes terutama perkara-perkara yang sekurang-kurangnya pihak Menteri yang ber- dibawa ke mahkamah, kes-kes jenayah dan kenaan dan pihak Ahli Yang Berhormat dari sebagainya, kadang-kadang berlanjutan Kota Melaka tentulah akan mengambil masa dapat menghukumkan mereka yang menjalan- yang panjang juga, kalau tidak, kita tidak kerana tidak dapat hendak menyegerakan akan dapat menutup Mesyuarat kita ini pada perkara ini kerana tidak ada saksi; kita lepas- pukul 6.30 petang hari ini. kan dan kita tahu mereka itu sebenarnya melakukan kesalahan. Jadi kalau perkara 5.72 ptg. yang macam ini ditimbulkan seolah-olah mereka ini hanya mengambil sebelah pihak Tuan Abdul Jalal bin Haji Abu Bakar sahaja. (Batu Pahat): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sebagai sebuah Kerajaan yang bertanggungjawab ke- Begitu juga, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, pihak- pada rakyat memang menjadi kewajipan pihak yang menjaga keamanan seperti polis untuk memperbaiki dan menambah—me- dan sebagainya yang patut benar kita mem- nokok, peraturan-peraturan terutamanya berikan penghargaan, mereka menjalankan mengenai keselamatan rakyat dan negara, tugas dengan penuh didikasi, dengan penuh maka saya percaya dengan tujuan yang ter- kepercayaan, taat setia hendak menjaga ke- sebut inilah Kerajaan mengadakan Peraturan- amanan, apalah salahnya dari segi amalan peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes Keselamatan), 1975. yang lalu kita berikan sedikit kemudahan, Tetapi apa yang menghairankan saya perkara- sedikit kuasa supaya menyegerakan mem- perkara lama juga ditimbulkan oleh pihak berkas mereka yang tidak bertanggungjawab Ahli Yang Berhormat dari sebelah sana, kepada negara. Jadi kalau perkara yang kenapa mereka bimbang seolah-olahnya semacam ini kita timbulkan; perkara-perkara mereka bimbangkan bayang-bayangkan lama sudah barang tentu keamanan dan ke- mereka sendiri. selamatan yang menjadi perkara penting mengatasi segala-galanya kita tidak dapat Sepatutnya memandangkan keadaan kese- jalankan. Sebagaimana saya katakan tadi dan lamatan negara sehingga setengah-setengah saya menegaskan sekali lagi sebagai Kerajaan rakyat mengatakan bahawa Kerajaan telah yang bertanggungjawab yang diamanahkan terlampau berlembut, terlampau memberi oleh rakyat, kita tidak perlu bimbang untuk muka pada mereka yang mengganggu kese- menjalankan apa sahaja yang sah dari segi lamatan, mengancam keselamatan rakyat dan undang-undang untuk hendak mententeram- kadang-kadang menggangu hak asasi rakyat kan keadaan. Kita berdoa semoga dengan sepatutnya rakyat boleh hidup dengan senang- adanya peraturan-peraturan ini kita akan lenang tetapi kerana ancaman, keganasan dapat mententeramkan keadaan negara kita penjahat-penjahat, perosak-perosak kesela- yang boleh dikatakan sekarang menjadi buah matan dan sebagainya, rakyat sentiasa dalam mulut setengah-setengah pihak seolah-olahnya ketakutan. Kita mendengar pada masa-masa negara kita ini tidak dapat dikawal lagi. Pihak yang lalu seolah-olah pihak yang berwajib Pembangkang tadi mengatakan dari segi tidak dapat hendak menghukumkan orang- ekonomi, saya percaya dan yakin dengan orang yang bertanggungjawab melakukan adanya Peraturan-peraturan Perlu ini keadaan ancaman keganasan dan sebagainya, tetapi akan dapat bertambah baik dan ini menyakin- kita maklum sebagai sebuah negara yang kan lagi pelabur-pelabur asing yang akan mengamalkan dasar demokrasi, gunakan dapat menambahkan lagi ekonomi kita dan mahkamah. Kita tidak dapat hendak meng- yang pentingnya untuk kesejahteraan rakyat hukumkan mereka yang melakukan kegana- dan negara. san dan sebagainya, kerana kita tidak cukup saksi dan sebagainya, maka dengan sebab Saya pun berasa hairan juga lagi-lagi hak ini pernah mereka yang sepatutnya dihukum asasi manusia yang mereka timbulkan seolah- tetapi kita lepaskan. Jadi, dengan adanya olahnya Kerajaan kita ataupun pihak yang Peraturan-peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes Kese- berwajib yang kita berikan kuasa selama ini lamatan), 1975, saksi boleh memberikan ke- menggunakan kuasa sewenang-wenangnya. 9833 19 DISEMBER 1975 9834

Kita patut memikirkan hak asasi kepada Ahli-ahli Parlimen yang bertanggungjawab rakyat supaya hidup dalam aman, tenteram, menyokong usul yang dikemukakan oleh tidak ada bimbang dan dengan cara ini kita rakan saya Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Kota dapat menimbulkan sebuah masyarakat yang Melaka untuk membatalkan Peraturan-per- adil, yang makmur, yang damai, tidak berasa aturan Perlu (Kes-kes Keselamatan), 1975. takut-takut, samada untuk menjadi saksi dalam mahkamah-mahkamah dan sebagai- Sebagaimana yang kita ketahui, Peraturan- nya. peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes Keselamatan), 1975 adalah bertentangan dengan dasar Kerajaan Saya dengan ini adalah menentang iaitu dasar untuk mengambil hati dan fikiran cadangan Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka orangramai. Sebenarnya, perlaksanaan Per- tadi. Yang sebenarnya, Ahli Yang Berhormat aturan-peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes Keselama- dari Kota Melaka ini rakan saya, beliau tan), 1975 ini bukan sahaja kepercayaan orang Batu Pahat, saya tahu. Saya berfikir rakyat kita hilang bahkan akan menukarkan dahulu saya bertanding melawan Yang Ber- negara kita sebagai sebuah negara polis me- hormat ini, tetapi Yang Berhormat ini lari ke rampas hak-hak asasi manusia. Saya hendak Melaka pula. Walau bagaimanapun, saya memberi amaran kepada Kerajaan Barisan harap kepada rakan-rakan Yang Berhormat Nasional bahawa menjalankan peraturan- dari sebelah sana gunakanlah masa yang ke- peraturan yang tengkis ini tidak akan me- emasan ini dengan perkara-perkara yang mulihkan keadaan kacau-bilau sekarang yang lebih penting lagi. mana diwarisi oleh dasar-dasar Kerajaan Barisan Nasional yang tidak adil. Saya ber- Sebagaimana kata rakan saya dari Kuala harap Kerajaan memandang berat kebijak- Selangor tadi, sepatutnya memandangkan ke- sanaan rakyat oleh kerana di dalam sejarah adaan negara seperti ini undang-undang ini dunia tidak ada sebuah negara yang boleh diperketatkan lagi hingga dapat membasmi tahan lama yang mana negara itu menjalan- mereka yang telah dan mungkin akan me- kan dasar yang tengkis terhadap rakyatnya. neruskan kejahatan-kejahatan dengan tujuan Dasarnya yang lagi tengkis, kuasanya lagi hendak menghuru-harakan negara ini. pendek. Dengan cara ini mungkin mereka hendak memberi peluang pada satu pihak yang lain Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sekiranya peraturan- menggunakan keadaan yang tidak aman kita peraturan ini tidak dibatalkan kita boleh me- untuk satu tujuan yang lain. ramalkan bahawa peraturan-peraturan yang Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya rasa saya lebih tengkis akan dilaksanakan sehingga tidak hendak bercakap panjang dan sekali memberi kuasa kepada pihak yang berkenaan lagi saya menegaskan bahawa kami Ahli-ahli untuk menembak mati orang-orang yang di- pihak Kerajaan mempunyai fikiran juga, anggap anasir-anasir anti-nasional atau suber- mempunyai kepala seperti mana Ahli-ahli sif yang kemudiannya keluarga si mati baru- yang di sebelah sana dan kita telah memikir- lah berpeluang membuktikan yang si mati itu kan dengan semasak-masaknya. Bukanlah bukan anasir-anasir anti-nasional atau suber- kami hanya menyokong dengan membuta- sif. tuli atau sebagainya. Hormatilah kami. Kami Akhirnya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, untuk mewakili beribu-ribu rakyat yang telah di- kepentingan rakyat dan negara, saya menyeru beri peluang dengan secara adil, tidak ada "Kerajaan Barisan Nasional yang bodoh" ini siapa yang boleh menafikan pilihanraya itu menerima usul parti kami dan membatalkan bukan sahaja pilihanraya 1974 bahkan sejak Peraturan-peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes Kese- tahun 1955 dahulu lagi rakyat tahu memilih lamatan), 1975 ini. Kerajaan yang lebih sesuai dan layak meme- rintah negara ini. Tuan Azahari bin Md. Taib: Saya jemput Sekianlah sahaja, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Yang Berhormat Menteri menjawab. saya sekali lagi menegaskan bahawa saya menentang kuat usul ini. 5.22 ptg.

5.20 ptg. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri (Tan Sri Haji Muhammad Ghazali bin Shafie): Tuan Chian Heng Kai (Batu Gajah): Tuan Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya minta izin ber- Yang di-Pertua, saya menyokong dengan sama-sama dengan saudara saya bercakap sepenuhnya dan juga menyeru kepada semua sedikit mengambil masa dalam masa lima 9835 19 DISEMBER 1975 9836

atau sepuluh minit kerana saya sangat takjub menentang undang-undang untuk menye- dan hairan mendengar Ahli Yang Berhormat lamatkan negara dan sia-sia pengorbanan dari Kota Melaka seolah-olah negara kita ini mereka semua? Soal ini yang saya katakan aman, damai dan tenteram. Seolah-olah beliau saya takjub. Saya hairan seolah-olah tidak tidak pernah mendengar bahawa 17 orang faham bahawa kita di dalam keadaan begini. polis China yang ditembak dan tidak dapat They say, "Love thy neighbour, love thy dibawa bicara orang yang ditangkap itu enemy." But your neighbour and enemy may kerana tidak cukup saksi dan takut. Seolah- be the same people. Ini yang susah. Jadi, olah beliau tidak mendengar hari-hari askar kalau tidak ada undang-undang bagaimana kita yang di dalam hutan berbatalion, bukan kita boleh mempertahankan keamanan, bagai- satu atau dua batalion bahkan lapan hingga mana kita boleh mempertahankan demokrasi. sembilan batalion menjaga keamanan negara. Kita bercakap berkenaan demokrasi dan Seolah-olah tidak mengetahui bahawa the democratic rights. Saya boleh membuat satu struggle of the Communist is a protracted cerita di sini. struggle—tidak habis pada tahun 1960 dahulu. Seolah-olah tidak mengetahui bahawa Pada tahun 1958 dahulu seorang pegawai beliau boleh bercakap dengan sewenang- tinggi dari Indonesia datang. Dia kata: wenang di sini kerana adanya orang kita "Ghazali, awak kata awak demokrasi, meng- menjaga keamanan. Jadi, saya bangun kerana apa tidak diizinkan kominis di sini?" Saya takjub. menjawab: "Bapak tengok, padang di depan Selangor Club sana". Kalau kita pergi ke Sepatutnya kalau saya ada kesempatan kelab tersebut pada pukul 5 petang, kita akan membuat satu motion memotong $1 gaji melihat orang memakai baju belang-belang, Ketua Pembangkang, hari ini saya buat berseluar pendek dan memakai boot. Tanya {Ahli-ahli: Sokong) kerana bercakap seolah- kepadanya, awak hendak ke mana? Mereka olah kita membawa soal human rights. menjawab, saya hendak main bola. Tetapi Memang human rights yang kita per- kita hendaklah awasi halus-halus, adakah tahankan. Human rights kita yang kita per- mereka pergi ke padang tersebut atau padang tahankan dengan undang-undang ini. Adakah mana? Kalau mereka pergi ke padang ter- kita lupa yang Tan Sri Koo mati. Apakah sebut yang golnya mendongak ke atas dan Tan Sri Koo tidak mempunyai human rights palangnya di tengah-tengah, bolanya bujor yang beliau mesti hidup? Beliau pun mem- dan 15 orang di sebelah. Kalau di sebelah punyai human rights untuk hidup juga. Puan sini berlainan pula golnya. Bolanya bulat dan Sri Koo ada juga human rightsnya mesti 11 orang di sebelah, tetapi pakaiannya sama. beliau mempunyai seorang husband dan anak Bercakap main bola. Inilah demokrasi. Kalau Tan Sri Koo mempunyai human rights yang sekiranya orang yang main bola bulat itu mesti mempunyai ayahnya. Human rights tadi, dia memegang bola dan dibawa lari, inilah yang kita pertahankan dengan undang- selain daripada goalkeeper, Tuan Yang di- undang ini. Dan undang-undang ini bukan Pertua, tentu tahu referee meniupkan foul, baru cara ini. Semasa emergency dahulupun tidak boleh. Dia main bola foul, jadi dia kita ada membuat berbagai-bagai undang- bertanya, apa sebabnya saya tidak boleh. Itu undang dan tidak ada satu masa dan incident, foul, awak tidak boleh pegang. Saya main satu instance pun yang dibawa oleh Ahli Yang bola. Orang itu main bola dan dia boleh bawa Berhormat dari Kota Melaka bahawa there dan pegang bola. Itu main rugby dan soccer. has been an abuse of power, bahkan oleh Kata awak hendak main bola dan hendak sebab adanya undang-undang ini maka kita pegang bola, pergilah bermain di padang dapat mententeramkan seberapa daya-upaya sana. Inilah pointnya cara hidup kita ini lain kita. Pergolakan kominis bukannya nasional. dengan orang itu, janganlah biarkan orang Kominis ini international communism yang itu menggunakan undang-undang kita untuk kita mesti mempunyai segala tenaga untuk membasmikan undang-undang kita akhirnya membasmi dan mempertahankannya. Jadi. kelak. Jangan kita menggunakan perkataan saya memberi setinggi-tinggi hormat dan demokrasi untuk membatalkan dan mem- segala penghargaan kepada semua askar- basmi demokrasi. Akhirnya, orang Indonesia askar dan polis kita yang berjuang. Mati yang saya katakan tadi nyaris-nyaris dibunuh salah seorang daripada mereka bermakna oleh kominis yang beliau berpendapat sedikit kita mati. Gugur seorang bermakna kominis patut diizinkan hari ini. Inilah point- sedikit kita cedera. Ini mesti kita rasa dalam nya, saya takjub dan hairan. Mengapa se- hati. Adakah kita di sini mengatakan orang yang bertanggungjawab seperti Ahli 9837 19 DISEMBER 1975 9838 Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka dan 532 ptg. rakan-rakannya membangkang. Membang- kang mengapa undang-undang sekarang tidak Menteri Undang-undang dan Peguam boleh dibawa kepada Privy Council. Kita Negara (Tan Sri Abdul Kadir bin Yusof): mesti membawanya kepada Privy Council, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bangun menen- tetapi beliau juga yang bercakap hendak tang usul yang dibawa oleh Ahli Yang Ber- merdeka daripada Inggeris. Bukankah begitu? hormat dari Kota Melaka. Mengapa beliau menyuruh kita bergayut Usul ini adalah terang dan nyata kepada kepada Privy Council di London itu? negara kita yang Kerajaan kita tidak takut Ini hairan dan takjub. Jadi hari ini hari memberi peluang kepada pihak Pembangkang takjub (Ketawa) membawa kehairanan se- dan juga Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat yang olah-olah kita tidak faham kenyataan yang lain membahaskan satu undang-undang yang ada di sekeliling kita. digelarkan Peraturan-peraturan Perlu (Kes- kes Keselamatan), 1975 yang dibuat di Ahli Yang Berhormat itu menyatakan bawah Ordinan Darurat masa Parlimen bahawa ada satu kejadian Polis memukul tidak bersidang dahulu dan mengikut Per- orang, kononnya, selepas itu dia mengadu lembagaan dan Undang-undang, Peraturan- dan macam-macam kejadian. Bukankah cerita peraturan ini adalah sah di sisi Undang- itu yang sebetul-betulnya menegakkan lagi undang dan tidak payahlah lagi di bawa keadilan di dalam negara, menegakkan lagi dalam Parlimen atau diluluskan dalam bahawa kita ada rule of law. Kalau kita Parlimen. Tetapi walau bagaimanapun, Kera- tidak ada rule of law, cakap Ahli Yang Ber- jaan tidak bimbang hendak membawa perkara hormat sendiri tak laku. Oleh sebab ada ini dalam Parlimen, kerana hendak menunai- rule of law inilah cakap Ahli Yang Ber- kan kehendak Ahli Yang Berhormat pihak hormat dari Kota Melaka laku. Itu saya Pembangkang dari Kota Melaka dan menun- beri jaminan. Kalau tidak ada rule of law, jukkan negara kita ini ada demokrasi. Kera- cakap Yang Berhormat tidak laku, kalau jaan tidak bimbang bila masa juapun beliau pergi mengadu kepada Polis, Polis membawa apa-apa undang-undang jua pun tidak dengar. Tetapi tidak, pengaduan Ahli walau peraturan-peraturan yang dibuat di Yang Berhormat itu diterima, beliau juga bawah Ordinan Darurat untuk dibahaskan yang bercerita. Jadi apa yang kita takutkan? dalam Parlimen. Saya percaya kalau sekira- nya Peraturan-peraturan itu dibuat masa Mengenai soal abuse of power itu tidak Parlimen ini bersidang, kita akan bawa usahlah khuatirkan. Dahulu kita diperintah dalam Parlimen dan digelarkan dia bukan oleh National Operations Council (NOC). Peraturan-peraturan Perlu (Kes-kes Kese- Adakah dalam NOC itu kita abuse of power. lamatan), tetapi digelarkan Ordinan. Tetapi Yang Amat Berhormat Tun Abdul Razak me- dengan adanya perkara ini dibahaskan dalam megang kuasa yang absolute, tetapi di dalam Parlimen dan kita mendapatkan keputusan tempuh tidak beberapa bulan sahaja beliau Parlimen, saya fikir ini lebih baik dan akan menyerahkan kuasa kepada semua rakyat. menguatkan lagi langkah-langkah Kerajaan Inikah yang kita khuatirkan? Inilah saya yang telah dibuat di luar Parlimen. Oleh itu, minta perhatian berat daripada Ahli Yang kita mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Ahli Berhormat daripada Kota Melaka timbang- Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka yang lah dengan sebaik-baiknya. Kita ini di membawa perkara ini supaya diluluskan dalam keadaan begini, yang kita mesti mem- dalam Parlimen pula. pertahankan kemerdekaan kita, kita mem- pertahankan demokrasi yang kita faham. Yang pertamanya, biarlah saya mula men- Demokrasi orang lain itu kita tidak faham, jawab dari segi legal aspect, izinkan saya, tetapi demokrasi kita yang kita faham— Tuan Yang di-Pertua, menjawab dalam demokrasi yang boleh mengizinkan Ahli bahasa Inggeris kepada Ahli Yang Ber- Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka bercakap, hormat dari Kota Melaka mengenai perkara- yang boleh mengizinkan semua orang ber- perkara yang dibangkitkan tadi. cakap di sini, dan bukan sahaja di sini, (Dengan izin) The first point I want to tetapi juga di luar. Kalau tidak sudah lama reply is the question raised by Yang Ber- Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Kota Melaka itu hormat dari Kota Melaka that the principle kena tangkap. Ini proof of our democracy. that a man is innocent until he is proved Jadi, inilah sahaja, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. to be guilty has been set aside. This is 9839 19 DISEMBER 1975 9840

incorrect in my view. The prosecution will Criminal Procedure Code where even if an begin the case under the Emergency and accused has been acquitted, a judge can order tender all the evidence against the accused. a warrant to arrest him and commit him to The court is required to decide on the in- prison pending the result of the appeal, or nocence or guilt of the accused after hearing permit him bail. all the evidence from both sides. Thus the accused is presumed to be innocent until The third point, he said, is that the he is proved to be guilty, proven to the Attorney-General is empowered to give a court by the evidence produced before the certificate on a security case. On this point, court both by the prosecution and by the I would like to remind him that the 1948 defence. Although this is a big amendment and 1964 Emergency Regulations had a more in the procedure for the trial, the principles severe provision enabling a Deputy Public still remain unaffected. It is heard by a Prosecutor to give such a certificate for Judge and he will consider the whole evidence the trial of any accused to be tried under before him and if he is satisfied that the the Emergency. Now, we have amended it. guilt of the accused is beyond reasonable At first, it was the Public Prosecutor. If the doubt, then only he will commit the accused; term "Public Prosecutor" is used, that means otherwise he will acquit the accused. And if any Deputy Public Prosecutor can give a he is convicted there is a chance by the certificate. But we feel that since there are accused to appeal and go before the Federal so many D.P.P.s, it would be very hard for Court to be heard by three Judges. Again, the Attorney-General to control them. So there is a chance for him to argue his case now we give this power to the Attorney- and even if his appeal is rejected, there is General personally and I am personally res- another tier, another safeguard, by which ponsible for this. I can assure this House he can appeal to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. that even up to now there are one or two Here the appeal to the Yang di-Pertuan cases which have been brought before me. Agong is not so much probably on the law I studied them very careflly and I rejected but on the facts as produced and the re- them. "No", I said, "it is not under this." commendations of the Judges and which- I did not sign it because I know I am not ever is the Committee or Board which advises only answerable to this House but being the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. We will go a Muslim, I am answerable, after death, to through very carefully all the facts; if the Allah the Almighty of what I decide. accused is sentenced to death, whether he should be sentenced to death or to commute One Honourable Member did mention to life imprisonment or to a lesser sentence. "We have trust in this Attorney-General, It depends on the nature of the case and but what happens in the future". I remind the whole circumstances of it. So there are you again that the Prime Minister has said, ample safeguards throughout the trial of that these are Emergency Regulations to these cases. meet the present circumstances. At any time, if there is more peace and if there is less As regards the point raised by him that attack in the urban areas, we assure you the new Regulation 27 provides for the im- that we will repeal these Regulations. This prisonment of the accused pending an appeal is a temporary measure and it will not be against his acquittal, I want to answer on for ever and it will not be used for the this point. There is nothing new in this pro- future. But even if it is repealed, anyone who vision. It is similar to Section 315 of the pre­­ is in power afterwards, whatever Govern- sent Criminal Procedure Code (F.M.S.) except ment, even if the Opposition is in power, that the power is with the Court against there is provision under the Constitution that whose decision the appeal is made instead during an emergency, you can pass any law, of the High Court. I will read it, Section 315 any written law against the provisions in the of the Criminal Procedure Code reads "When Constitution, except for one or two an appeal is presented against an acquittal a matters—on religion, nationality and lan- Judge my issue a warrant directing that the guage, I think—but other than that even accused be arrested and brought before him, against human rights you can pass any law. and may commit him to prison pending the But we did not go so far. You accuse the disposal of the appeal or admit him to bail". Government for example, with the abuse of So there is nothing new in that Regulation. power. In 1969, when the National Operations There is already a similar provision in the Council was ruling this country for 1 1/2year s 9841 19 DISEMBER 1975 9842

there was no Parliament. All the powers were and in addition thereto he shall give evi- in the hands of our present Prime Minister dence in such manner as shall not be visible at that time. We could have done what we to the accused or his counsel.". liked. But what did we do? Did we abuse the power for one and a half years when The court shall make inquiry first to be there was no Parliament? We did not do satisfied why his identity should not be known. anything. In fact, we were anxious that Here I am going to give out, which I never Parliament should return and given back the told anyone, of a real experience in my life power to rule this country. We had been regarding the identity of a witness. I am partly given more power than any one else, almost responsible for putting up this provision dictatorial power in the hands of one person, because when I was in Ipoh in 1957—the and we never abused it. There is a clear Emergency was still very strong then—I was example. What is worrying really about these Chairman of the Committee of Review at Regulations is trust—whether this House will that time. Unfortunately, in one case a man trust the Government, or the rakyat jelata, was detained and appeared before me for the people in this country, will trust the an order for continued detention, for supplying Government, and those in power whether foodstuffs to the communists on the border they will implement this power justly or of an estate. He appeared before me and there abuse it. We can assure you that this was a counsel—I would not mention the Government has been in power since inde- name—but witnesses were not called, we read pendence up to now and compared to all all only from the report of the Police. But other countries in Asia and all around us, both the detainee and the counsel insisted on thank God, at least we have a democratic the name of the person who saw him giving form of Government up to now. This I can rice to that communist on the edge of the say is because we have the Emergency Regu- estate. I realised the danger, and I told the lations and we have certain laws which persons with me who were assessors at that protect our democratic form of Government. time. We refused to give the name, but they insisted and they accused the Police of manu- So, although we have very wide powers facturing that evidence. We did mention the under the Emergency, we in the Government district, but they were not satisfied. We did are a responsible Government, responsible to mention the month, but they were still not the rakyat, responsible to the people and satisfied. They wanted the name. But we did responsible to the world. We will see to it mention, as I said, the date and the place— that we do not abuse it; we will use it only that is all. And we committed. I could not where necessary to preserve democracy and sleep that night remembering, because the the liberty of the people. detainee was there and he must have known. The next point raised is that the evidence I must have made a mistake. It was true he can be given where the identity of the witness was detained, but I was sure he sent informa- is concealed from the accused—it is Regu- tion outside because when he gave the rice lation 19. Regulation 19 (2) provides strong to the communist, he saw that rubber tapper safeguards requiring that the court shall hold seeing him. What happened? Two months an inquiry to satisfy itself that resort to the later that man and his family were all wiped regulation is really necessary. You can read out. Up to now I can never forget it in my the regulation. Not in every case—if the pro- conscience. That is an example. secution wants a case where the identity of the witness is not to be disclosed. I will read Do you expect people to give evidence, it: for example, of seeing hand grenades being thrown that day in Kuala Lumpur where two "(2) For the purpose of satisfying itself as died and 45 persons were badly injured? Did to the need to follow this procedure of any one of you go to the hospital and see recording evidence under this regulation, what happened to these people? It was like the court shall hold an inquiry in camera a butcher's shop. It is that case that prompted by asking the witness concerned or any us. The Government was very reluctant to other witness in the absence of the accused pass this law. But we found one by one our and his counsel." people, the Security Forces, especially the (3) If after such inquiry the court is Chinese police detectives and others, who are satisfied as aforesaid, the evidence of such very loyal to the Government, although they witness as aforesaid shall be given in camera can resign if they want to but remain loyal 9843 19 DISEMBER 1975 9844 to this country, one by one in the urban areas, ke Juri, tiga bulan jel. Tidak mengapa, in the towns, are being killed and shot. No katanya kerana orang yang dituduh itu ialah one came forward up to now because they saudaranya telah mengugut: Kalau engkau were afraid of repraisal. I know because I cakap, engkau nampak, apa akan jadi pada met some of them who said, "Tan Sri, if we masa akan datang kepada anak dan isteri give evidence and if you give us $50,000 even engkau? Ini banyak berlaku. Saya tidak if we go to Hongkong or any other parts of tahulah perkara yang akan datang. Tiba-tiba the world, they will come for us". saksi terbalik kot. Kalau dia masuk jel tiga bulan tidak apa, kerana orang yang dituduh This is the type of people we are dealing akan membayar saguhati kepada orang yang with. The Security Forces have given away menanggung anak isterinya. Ini kes biasa, their lives—the Army, the Police—by fighting bukan kes kominis, bukan emergency; berapa in the jungle. Now they come to town. One by banyak yang dibuang kes. As one learned one they are being killed and they are waiting Judge in England said, "Why are there so for justice. They could not get justice. That many crimes now being committed?" Why? is why my Solicitor-General said, "Now justice Not like before. The reason is because the law is on trial". But the people are really worried which we have at present is more on the side as to what has happened to this country. of the criminals rather than on people's What kind of justice is it? The Security security. This is the whole trouble. And here, Forces are watching us all the time. One by even if our present law is more in favour of one their members have been killed and they the criminals, we did not tamper with it. We cannot get one even and if we arrest one or are dealing with the Communist agents and two of them and put them on trial they will the Communists themselves who come into be acquitted. If this goes on, what confidence the town areas and start killing people here, will the Security Forces have in the Govern- especially the Security Forces, and very few ment and the people of this country? I do people have come forward to give evidence. not know what will happen. This is a point And, up to now, as I have told you, there is I am going to stress. With this new Regu- only one charge pending now in Trengganu lation, at least it gives confidence to those under the Emergency Regulations—up to young men who give away their lives to now. But there is this hue and cry from the defend this country. At least they say, if we Opposition of "Where is liberty?", "Where get one or two, bring them to trial, and if is hak asasi?". they are really guilty, make sure that they are sentenced properly. This, I call, is justice As regards whether this is constitutional or on trial. What worries me is that the people not constitutional, this case has been tested will have no more confidence in the justice in the Court many times before and we are of this country if this is allowed to go on. willing at any time if any Opposition Member I want to stress here again this law which or anyone of the rakyat wishes to challenge you all speak so much against, is only for this again in the Court. We will let the Court a few cases under the Internal Security Act decide whether our Regulations, our Per- and not for other cases. aturan, are really constitutional or unconstitu- tional. Undang-undang yang ada sebagaimana biasa bagi orang awam berjalan sebagaimana I would like to quote here the Judgement biasa, itu pun berapa banyak lebih daripada of Lee Hun Hoe, Chief Justice of Borneo, in 50 peratus yang kita tahu salahpun buang a case in 1974—the Government of Malaysia kes juga. Saya terangkan di sini, terang-terang vs Mahan Singh—because it concerns the orang itu bersalah, saya selalu menjadi Pen- Emergency Regulations, and some of it are dakwa Raya, terang dan nyata dia mengaku relevant here. He says: membunuh tetapi apakala dibicarakan tiga "Article 150 gives His Majesty wide powers, witnesses atau saksi tidak mengikut apa yang so wide that he could, in the interest of the dicakapkannya pada mula dia nampak orang nation, during Emergency, act as he thought itu menikam, katanya, saya tidak nampak, fit. This is the most important aspect of the tidak nampak. Orang itu terpaksalah dilepas- matter—the interest of the nation comes kan—(ketawa). Dia tahu orang itu yang mem- first. This is the law of the civil or State bunuh, semua orang nampak tetapi oleh necessity, which forms part of the Common kerana seorang saksi kata tidak nampak, Law and which every written constitution terpaksa saya tangkap dia, hukum dia bawa of all civilised states take for granted. 9845 19 DISEMBER 1975 9846 The reason underlying the law of neces- what the Government has done. But the sity was aptly put by Cromwell." Government has done a lot of development since Independence up to now. People's lives I think everyone knows Cromwell, and this have been improved, our economy has been is what Cromwell said: improved, and education has been improved. "If nothing could be done by what is We have done almost everything. But develop- according to law the throat of the nation ment takes times. However, in the meantime might be cut while we send for someone the Communists try to disrupt our develop- to make law." ment by instilling fear into the people, by killing the people at random, so that we find In a case called "Ronfelt vs Phillips and it very difficult to deal with them, because Others", the Lord Justice observed, and this they know that with such present laws, even is what he said: if they are arrested, we can never convict "In time of war there must be some them. modifications in the interest of the State. It had been said that war could not be Kita sepatutnya pada hari ini mengenang- conducted on the principle of the 'Sermon kan jiwa-jiwa yang telah diambil oleh Tuhan on the Mount'. It might also be said that dengan dibunuh oleh kominis-kominis ini, war, including emergency, could not be sepatutnya kita mengenangkan jasa ahli-ahli carried on according to the principles of the Security Forces yang telah meninggalkan Magna Carta." anak isteri berbulan-bulan di sempadan Thailand sana dan kita membantu mereka Sir, we are dealing with unscrupulous itu sedikit sahaja dengan membuat satu people who do not care for the law, who Undang-undang sedikit perbezaannya tentang probably at this moment, three or four of perbicaraan daripada Undang-undang biasa. them, decide somewhere, not far from this Ini yang ditentang sangat oleh pihak Pem- city, to kill this person or that person and bangkang mengatakan liberty dan hak asasi you will find out that tomorrow night they rakyat jelata semuanya sudah habis. Saya will come and execute what they have mengatakan dengan terang di sini Undang- decided—come to the city and kill one person. undang ini telah mendapat sokongan ramai This is their law and we cannot get them. And you are trying to object to the Regula- daripada rakyat jelata. Saya berani berkata tions which we put up, which we consider demikian walaupun pihak Pembangkang quite fair in the circumstances, because we bimbang tadi, tetapi kita sedar sebagai pihak feel that this is one of the method by which yang memerintah dan negeri kita negeri demo- we can deal with these people. But if this krasi, sebagaimana saya kata tadi dalam masa fails, I do not know what will happen to this masa empat tahun lagi kita akan mengadakan country. pilihanraya sekali lagi, masa itu rakyat jelata akan menimbangkan samada dengan Undang- Now you speak about winning the hearts undang yang kita buat ini menyalahkan Kera- and minds of the people as being more jaan, tidak hendak memilihnya lagi, hendak important. That is true, but you must re- memilih pihak Pembangkang atau tidak. Saya member that we are fighting against the percaya apa yang kita buat kebanyakan Communists and some of the people living in rakyat yang taat setia kepada negara yang this country have already made up their bencikan kepada kominis dan ejen-ejennya minds in favour of the Communists. We want akan menyokong kita, melainkan pihak- to win the hearts and minds of the people by pihak yang menyebelahi mereka itu sahaja way of improvements and development, but yang berjuang melaung-laungkan mengatakan to some of these people even if you stack sacks and sacks of gold before them—but Undang-undang ini akan merosakkan keper- they will not be satisfied. They will not cayaan rakyat, akan merosakkan hak asasi change their minds about their ideology. They mereka itu. Barangkali, maaf saya, ada di believe in their ideology. Whatever the antara yang bimbang, oleh sebab itu dia buat Government does in their new villages— baik siang-siang, bimbangkan keselamatan build even golden houses, golden bridges, negara ini dan bimbangkan pada satu masa etc.—they will not change their minds. When kelak mereka itu akan memerintah negeri ini, they are already imbibed with their ideology, mereka buat jasa daripada sekarang, saya nothing will change their minds—in spite of tidak tahulah. 9847 19 DISEMBER 1975 9848

Berkenaan dengan Bar Council, saya telah mengikut kehendak rakyat, mengikut ke- bercakap di akhir penutup Conference of adaan dalam negeri itu. Undang-undang yang Magistrates kelmarin kepada ahli-ahli Bar beku sahaja tidak ada faedah kepada negara, berkenaan dengan undang-undang ini dan tidak ada gunanya. Bila tidak ada guna saya memberitahu mereka itu boleh memberi undang-undang itu, ada penuh human rights pandangan-pandangan dan kita sedia me- mengikut negeri tamadun kononnya, tetapi nerimanya. Sungguhpun setengah daripada kalau tidak ada guna, tidak ada keselamatan undang-undang walau apapun undang- kepada negara, tidak guna kepada rakyat undang kita tidak merujuk kepada Bar dan tidak guna undang-undang itu. Rakyat Council—kepada peguam-peguam tetapi se- memandang kepada undang-undang itu apa lepas undang-undang itu diluluskan ada pula kegunaannya, apa kebaikannya kepada negara pandangan-pandangan diberi kepada kita dan dan kepada mereka itu bukan kepada cantik- kepada pihak Kerajaan sekiranya menasabah nya undang-undang itu mengikut Magna kita sedia menimbangkannya sebagaimana Carta, Human Rights dan Iain-lain lagi. yang kita buat pada kali ini, dengan sebab presentationnya, kita banyak membawa per- Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya fikir had itulah ubahan-perubahan kepada peraturan mesyu- sahaja. arat yang telah diluluskan dahulu dan kita buat pindaan-pindaan yang menasabah. Se- Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Ahli Yang Ber- kiranya pada masa akan datang ini juga tidak hormat dari Kota Melaka, kalau hendak puas hati dan berkehendakkan pindaan lagi, jawab, bolehlah menjawab, tetapi saya minta Kerajaan akan bersedia memindanya sekira- supaya jangan panjang-panjang sangat. nya ada peraturan-peraturan ini tidak sesuai pada masa akan datang. Saya mintalah 6.04 ptg. kepada semua Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat memikirkan dengan sehalus-halusnya se- Tuan Lim Kit Siang: Tuan Yang di- belum membuat keputusan samada usul itu Pertua, terlebih dahulu saya hendak meng- hendak diterima atau ditolak. ucapkan terima kasih kepada semua Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat yang telah mengambil Saya suka memberitahu di sini, iaitu saya bahagian dalam perbahasan mengenai usul percaya rakyat jelata kalau tidak 100%, 99% ini, khasnya kepada Ahli-ahli Yang Berhor- ada di belakang kita. Semenjak peraturan mat yang menyokong. Saya telah mendengar ini dibuat saya telah menjelajah ke beberapa dengan teliti hujjah-hujjah yang telah dike- tempat dan saya dimarah oleh orang-orang mukakan dan saya rasa soalan yang dike- yang saya temui, katanya: "Tan Sri, sudah mukakan oleh Ahli Yang Berhormat dari lambat membuat undang-undang ini, sepatut- Kanowit tidak mendapat satu jawapan yang nya sudah ada lama dahulu." Beginilah ke- memuaskan hati. banyakan report yang ada. Baharu-baharu ini saya dapat kenyataan (report) lagi Saya minta izin menyambung ucapan saya daripada orang ramai yang mengatakan, dalam bahasa Inggeris. "Undang-undang ini payah, mengapa Tan (Dengan izin) I wish first, Tuan Speaker, Sri bila sudah ditangkap orang yang ada to refer to the remarks made by the Honour- pistol buat apa bawa balik dan dibicarakan able Minister of Home Affairs and then to lagi, tembak sahajalah bila tidak ada lesen." the Honourable Minister of Law. Of course, Beginilah kehendak mereka. Itulah yang I appreciate that it still stings him—because saya katakan "Justice on trial". Kalau rakyat of my $10-cut Motion, he wants to cut $1 jelata semua esok berkehendakkan begini from the allowance of Ketua Pembangkang. apa fikiran pihak Pembangkang. Baharu I can say he is any time welcome and next sedikit sahaja undang-undang yang kita betul- year he can do it and I may even support kan, dia kata tidak ada hak asasi pada hal him, because I have a lot of things to say negeri ini boleh jadi macam-macam cara about the office and facilities provided for pemerintahan undang-undang di masa akan the Ketua Pembangkang. datang. Boleh jadi satu masa kelak undang- undang negeri kita dijalankan mengikut As the Honourable Member for Kanowit Undang-undang Islam, apa pula kata pihak has said, by moving this Motion, we are not Pembangkang nanti. Undang-undang ini supporting the insurgent forces. We are mesti diubah dari satu masa ke satu masa reflecting the concern of the people outside 9849 19 DISEMBER 1975 9850 this House, that these very wide and un- Just now I mentioned about parallel trammelled powers vested in the hands of systems of Government whereby Emer- the Government are very susceptible to gency powers and Reserve Constitutional abuse. powers are used in order to set aside genuine democratic "forms" of Government where as The Honourable Minister of Home Affairs a result, Parliament or the Legislative Cham- mentioned about human rights—whether ber has been reduced to an auditorium, where there are no human rights for the late Tan maybe there are limited rights for the Opposi- Sri Koo, the Chief Police Officer of Perak tion to speak, to raise their views on limited and Puan Sri Koo and the children. The areas. But I think it would be a great mis- question is whether these laws are going to take to believe that this is democracy. I say help the Government to arrest the persons this is not democracy, this is not democracy who killed Tan Sri Koo or whether these enough, because such a Parliament is no laws are going to implicate innocent people more than a "rubber stamp" where the who are not in any way involved in the majority in hand does not add or lend any killing. The clarifications that have been advanced by the two Honourable Ministers respectability or credibility to the whole have not been able to allay anxiety and fear Parliamentary process. that there are no safeguards to prevent the The Honourable Minister of Law raised innocent from being implicated, harassed and various matters in reply to my speech when persecuted. moving the Motion. Firstly, with regard to safeguards, he said there is not only a pro- The Honourable Minister said that I could vision for appeal from the High Court to the only mention one instance of abuse of power, Federal Court but also appeal to the Yang but I have mentioned three and I could di-Pertuan Agong. We know that a Pardons mention a whole catalogue of more instances Board has been set up to advice the Yang of abuse of power. He said that the very fact di-Pertuan Agong in the exercise of this that, in the case of the Tangkak lorry driver— power. But we also know that the composition he was brutally assaulted by the Police and he of this Pardons Board, as announced, consists lodged a report—that he could lodge a report of Y.A.B. Perdana Menteri, Y.A.B. Timbalan shows that there is Rule of Law in this Perdana Menteri, the Minister of Labour country. Probably that is his concept of the who is the President of M.C.A., the Minister Rule of Law—that so long as a person can of Law himself and the Minister of Com- go to the Police and lodge a report, there is munications who is the President of the Rule of Law, although no action is taken, M.I.C. The question is, "Why should the although his report is ignored and although Pardons Board be politicised"? Or has the his report is completely thrown into the Government no confidence that this question wastepaper basket. It is his Rule of Law. should be left to a completely independent It is not my Rule of Law and I am sure it body of persons eminent in Public Service is not the Rule of Law the overwhelming who can give consideration to questions on majority of right thinking Malaysians want this matter completely divorced from ques- to have. tions of political approach and political He said that there is Parliamentary demo- interest? I, therefore, do not regard this as a cracy because we are allowed to speak here; sufficiently adequate safeguard. He assured us and many Members from the Government that this would be a temporary provision side said that the very fact that I am allowed and would be withdrawn as and when the to move a Motion and speak on it shows that situation permits. We have heard this assu- there is democracy. I thank the Government rance before. It was in 1964 or in 1965, if I for agreeing to schedule a day for this debate, remember correctly, when the House moved for this very vital matter not for us alone, and passed a Motion to suspend Local not for the Opposition but for the Govern- Government Elections and the House was ment, for the country. But let it not be assured that it was temporary, but this thought, just because Opposition Members "temporary" has a feature of becoming can stand up in this House and talk, because "permanently permanent" under the Govern- Opposition Members can introduce a Motion, ment's definition. that there is democracy. If that is the demo- The Honourable Minister of Law and the cracy of the Barisan, again I say "you can Honourable Minister of Home Affairs, to have it." illustrate that powers are not abused however 9851 19 DISEMBER 1975 9852 wide, however untrammelled, referred to the "golden houses" in the new villages cannot case of the N.O.C. in 1969 and asked, "What change them or cannot move them. But the abuse took place?" I can say here that I question is we should be concerned not so personally was a victim of abuse of power much with people who are ideologically under the N.O.C, for I was detained under committed, but with the general population, the Internal Security Act for 18 months with the general public, the rakyat. Has there and been since 1957, the day of Merdeka till today, 1975, increased number of people who Seorang Ahli Yang Berhorrnat: You de- are minded to sympathise, for instance, with served it! guerilla activities in urban areas, in the jungle areas, or has there been an increase in the number of those people whom "golden Tuan Lim Kit Siang: I deserved it? That houses" or a sack of gold cannot move any is your view. But I say that is an abuse of more? Is there a qualitative increase? Why? power and I am sure we can mention more Is it because the policy of the Government instances of abuse. For those who abuse and has failed to reach to the ground, to win the know not that they abuse, I feel sad and hearts and minds of the people? The battle sorry for them. to win the hearts and minds of the people The Honourable Minister of Home Affairs is a long one. Yes, it does not take one day and the Honourable Minister of Law men- or two days, but since 1957, we have not got tioned about the security aspect, that we speak one day or two days, we have got 18 years in as if unaware of the fact that we face a very this battle to win the hearts and minds of the grave security situation. All along, as a people. Are we losing ground as shown by matter of fact, the Honourable Minister of the increasingly more and more grave security Home Affairs himself has gone repeatedly situation facing the country? Unfortunately, on public record as saying that the security there is only a preoccupation to deal with it situation is fully under control and there is solely from the security point of view with no cause for worry. No Minister has ever, as the passing of more and more repressive I remember, until now, said that the security laws. I think it was the Honourable Member situation in Malaysia has reached its most for Baling if I am not mistaken, who said critical moments since our nationhood or that with these Security Cases Regulations, since the history of this land, overshadowing there would be no more riot, there would be the Emergency days starting from the late no more trouble and that there would be 1940's, and right through the 1950's and the complete restoration of law and order. If that 1960's. But now we are being asked to believe is the formula, the recipe for national har- that in regard to the security situation we mony, for national stability, I am sure other are facing the darkest days. I say if that is the countries would have discovered it long ago, case, then the Government must come out e.g. Vietnam, Cambodia and all other coun- clearly, frankly, fully with all the facts, and tries which have gone. But the recipe which particulars, so that the people can be in they had practised, which they had used, possession of all the facts. It should not on which they had applied did not work, the one hand let one section of the people and this should be enough for us to believe that the security situation is be more introspective, to turn inwards and completely under control while on the other find out the root problems and reasons for hand demanding wide and untrammelled this state of affairs that we are facing today powers, which is completely not in keeping which is undoubtedly very grave. with the assurances or the "sugar coating" that is being given about the security situation. With regard to the Honourable Minister of Law's reference on the constitutionality of I think what is most shocking—and today the Ordinances, he said that the Government is the "Hari Takjub" as said by the Honour- welcomes any challenges to the court, that able Minister of Home Affairs—is that there they have been vindicated in the past and he is no full awareness as to why Malaysia has believes that it will continue to be reached a stage where we are told that the vindicated, except that now we cannot security situation is very, very serious and, go all the way to the Privy Council. as the Honourable Minister of Law has said, He quoted from Cromwell who said, "The there are people who are so ideologically throat of the nation might be cut while we committed that even sacks of gold and send for someone to make law." Is the 9853 19 DISEMBER 1975 9854 Honourable Minister of Law seriously saying he was making, if not for the fact that I have that if the Security Cases Regulations had seen the Government itself changing the rules been submitted to Parliament for Parliament's of the democratic game whenever they feel consideration, for Parliament's adoption, the that they are being put at a disadvantage. whole security situation would have gone out They themselves are guilty of changing the of control? This analogy is completely in- rules of the game. appropriate and cannot be considered. The whole question is the legitimacy of the laws The Honourable Member for Ledang said of the land. The part of my speech on which that if we had asked for some minor changes the Honourable Minister of Law had signi- in the Regulations, it would have been con- ficantly not commented on is about the sidered but not for its repeal. I think he did propriety from the constitutional point of not understand why I was saying that the view, from the point of view of the acceptabi- whole thing was obnoxious from the point of lity of the people and political morality of view of constitutional propriety and political continuing to enact and pass Emergency laws morality. I thank the Honourable Member for and Emergency regulations when Parliament Kepala Batas for his very kind words, that I could have been summoned. In this case it was expressing views which he shares in the was already summoned and it was going to bottom of his heart (Ketawa)—probably it is meet and it was a question of two or three too bottom in the heart to be able to be sal- weeks because these Regulations were gazetted vaged from the bottom. (Ketawa). I just want on the 4th October and the Lower House of finally to refer to the Honourable Member Parliament was to meet on the 27th October. for Kuala Selangor The Honourable Minister of Law said that Tuan Mohd. Sopiee bin Sheikh Ibrahim: 99% of the people support the Regulations. He said that whoever he met told him that (Bangun). these Regulations should have been passed long ago. I say that 100% of the persons that Tuan Lim Kit Siang: Pardon? I have met, expressed fear and concern and opposition for these laws. He must have been Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Carry on. meeting different persons from those I meet. Tuan Lim Kit Siang: I refer to the Honour- But it cannot be 99% in any event. It shows able Member for Kuala Selangor who said that the Minister is cut off from the ordinary that the Motion and my speech raised a fears of the people on the ground, and he is question mark and referred to us as the living in an ivory tower. enemies of the nation. I am used to getting such insinuations coming from that direction The question I want to pose is this. While except that he referred to the question of we are all concerned about the question of Datuk James Wong, that Datuk James Wong national security and would support all appears to be my hero as I continue to bring measures in order to strengthen national up his case. I raise the question of Datuk security, we must ask whether in the name of James Wong because it highlights, in a very national security the taking of measures as the vivid fashion, the abuse of power of the Security Cases Regulations which would Government. There is not just one "Datuk knock off the whole underpinnings of a demo- James Wong" in this country. There are so cratic system, of the people's belief and many hundreds of "Datuk James Wongs" in confidence in a democratic system, is not this country whose cause needs equally to be finally going to bring about a greater security taken up. But, in view of the fact that Datuk problem in the country. I submit that if the James Wong's case illustrated in so convin- situation that in the name of national security cingly a fashion that a person has been de- we are knocking off the whole underpinnings tained and incarcerated for reasons which the of a democratic society which sustains people's Government is unable to furnish. This is not confidence in democracy. the only case. Unfortunately it would appear that their minds are so closed that such Tuan Yang di-Pertua, the Honourable clarity cannot even open their minds. Minister of Home Affairs gave a gaming analogy about rules of the game. I would have Finally, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, I feel, despite fully agreed with him about the importance of the suggestion from the Honourable Member the rules of the game and about the point that for Kepala Batas for the withdrawal of this 9855 19 DISEMBER 1975 9856 Motion, for the reasons that I have already Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Sekurang-kurangnya given, that there are no satisfactory safeguards 15 orang Ahli berdiri dahulu, baru boleh for innocent people from being implicated Division. Saya minta sesiapa yang menyokong and from being wronged, there are no satis- permohonan Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Kota factory reasons that in the name of national security this measure is not in effect destroying Melaka supaya dipungut undi dengan Belah- the very underpinnings of a democratic sys- bahagi berdiri—(11 Ahli berdiri)—Tidak tem; and in veiw of the various objections cukup 15 Ahli, tidak boleh dipungut undi that I have raised with regard to the Rule of dengan Belah-bahagi. Law, with regard to the damage it is doing to Parliamentary democracy, constitutional pro- priety, the abuses that would be laid open; Usul dikemuka bagi diputuskan, dan tidak that all these have not been cogently answered disetujukan. (Tepok). and dispelled, I move that this House repeal the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations, Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Ahli-ahli Yang Ber- 1975 and the Essential Security Cases hormat, sekarang saya tangguhkan Dewan ini (Amendment) Regulations, 1975. kepada satu tarikh yang akan ditetapkan Usul dikemuka bagi diputuskan kelak. Tuan Lim Kit Siang: Sir, I ask for a Divi- sion. I am sure the Government also would Dewan ditangguhkan pada pukul 6.30 want everybody to take a stand. petang.