Is the NSC Bill for security or self preservation? – Ravinder Singh

The new National Security Council (NSC) Bill is not about security but about ensuring continuity of the present government.

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

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

This game has changed with the 2008 general election when Barisan Nasional lost its two-thirds majority for the first time in history.

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

Things are looking very bleak for the next election. The Election Commission has done its work in Sarawak to ensure the results will favour the ruling party, as admitted by a former chairman of the commission.

It will soon be doing the same in Sabah, the nagging fear of unpredictability of the next election results is the real fear that the government is trying to grapple with.

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

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

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

It would be open to the whims and fancies of the authorities to declare anything as being harmful to people, the territories, key infrastructures and the economy.

We have seen how questioning the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) issue has been labelled as efforts to destabilise the economy and the government.

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

Whose word would be the last on what could be labelled as “likely to cause harm to people, territories, key infrastructure and the economy?”

Can it be that of the prime minister who will directly benefit from such a labelling as Parliament could be suspended and he will continue in his post without the need to face an election?

If Umno elections can be postponed, so could parliamentary procedures be suspended if there was another incident like some that have taken place before, and a vague law that can be interpreted to suit the occasion or need.

The NSC Bill seemed to be designed for such purposes although there are existing laws that could deal with national security matters.

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

- TMI