tumult or public disorder, the retention and exercise of these legal weapons has
increasingly become a matter of grave concern. The gamut of discretion accorded
to the executive to deploy these weapons, in most instances against those who are
on the opposite side of the political divide and against critics of the government,
highlights the fact that these weapons are difficult to reconcile with the notion of
liberal democracy. In this connection, despite the valiant efforts of a few judges,
the courts, as a whole, have abdicated their judicial role as the guardian of
constitutional fundamental liberties. The Star newspaper reported: ‘Since its
inception until 2005 , 10 , 662 people have been arrested under the ISA. A total of
4 , 139 were issued with formal detention orders while 2 , 066 were served
with restriction orders governing their activities and where they live.’^32 It also
reported that as of 12 April 2009 , there were twenty-seven people still detained
under the ISA.
On 15 September 2011 , the eve of Malaysia Day, the prime minister, Datuk Seri
Najib Tun Razak, announced his intention to revoke three proclamations of
emergency which had been issued many years previously and which, because they
had not been revoked by the king (acting on advice of the Cabinet) or annulled by
the Malaysian parliament, remained in existence.
33
He also promised the repeal of
an infamous piece of legislation, the ISA, and an amendment to the Printing
Presses and Publications Act to abolish ‘the yearly renewal principle’ – ‘in lieu
thereof a licence will be issued until revoked’.
The three proclamations of emergency referred to by Prime Minister Datuk
Seri Najib Tun Razak pertained to proclamations effected in 1966 , 1969 and 1977.
The prime minister regarded the 1964 proclamation of emergency (to deal with
the Indonesian ‘confrontation’) as having been implicitly revoked. The 1966
proclamation provided the pretext to resolve a constitutional impasse in the state
of Sarawak to enable the federal government to oust Stephen Kalong Ningkan
(who had lost favour with the federal government) as the Menteri Besar of that
state.^34 Likewise the 1977 proclamation was to resolve a crisis in the state of
Kelantan arising from the refusal of the state Menteri Besar (a member of Parti
Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) who was, however, favoured by the federal government)
to resign in the face of a vote of no confidence by the state legislature dominated
by PAS members. At that time PAS was a member of the BN coalition but the
relationship with the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) soon turned
(^32) ‘Time to repeal the ISA’, theStaronline, 12 April 2009 ,http://thestar.com.my/news/story.
asp?file=/ 2009 / 4 / 12 /focus/ 3658721 &sec=focus,at 4 October 2011.
(^33) BERNAMA, ‘Govt to Table Motion to Revoke Emergency Proclamations: Najib’, My
Sinchew website, 16 September 2011 ,www.mysinchew.com/node/ 63745 ?tid= 4.
(^34) H.P. Lee, ‘The Ningkan saga: a chief minister in the eye of a storm’, in Andrew Harding
and H.P. Lee (eds.),Constitutional Landmarks in Malaysia: The First 50 Years 1957 – 2007
(Kuala Lumpur: LexisNexis, 2007 ), p. 77.