Screenshots: Nat's arrest: Don't fall unto ADS

Forthose uniitiaited, ADS is my term for Attention Diversion Syndrome.

First, scan the newspaper headlines.

Page 1 lead story in Oriental Daily News:

Nat Tan's arrest: The start of major clamp-down?
Bloggers besieged with White terror

Page 2 lead story:

Nat Tan's arrest: Condemnations all over
Police arrest procedure improper

Get a copy.

Stay focussed!

Meanwhile, stay reminded that the effectiveness of crime-fighting measures involving the Internal Security Ministry and the Police is still the focus of the the Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights and Good Governance -- public hearing or otherwise.

Don't get sidetracked or your attention diverted. We are still being owed a resolution to protect our citizens from all fears and threats.

This is also to caution The Star and Sin Chew for chasing the wrong story in their papers yesterday. Both papers have erroneously attributed Nat' arrest to the controversial composite picture of the DPM and a French dinner.

However, both The Star and Sin Chew have changed their stories in today's edition.

Both papers are now saying Nat's arrest "is believed to be in possession of documents linked to Deputy Internal Security Minister Johari Baharom’s alleged involvement in corruption", which The Star says are in relation to "police case files on detainees or suspects investigated under the Emergency Ordinance".

There could be more than meets the eyes, as far as a Malaysia Boleh!land that has many a chequered past record could show.

Comments

The root of the matter is who decides what comes under the OSA.

It's reasonable to say that if the OSA is made to protect defense matters whose compromise will affect national security, then well and fine.

The principle of protecting the bigger good is safeguarded.

Now tell me what happens if the OSA is applied to protect parties who are or may be deemed in a court of law to have acted contrary to the bigger good of the rakyat, or are culpable in abuse of power.

Wouldn't that mean the principle is used for one aspect and not for the other?

As dangerous as external threat to nation and society is internal threat from one's own through such aspects as corruption and abuse of power; lately you can add personal vendetta to the list on the excuse that the party was 'acting on behalf of the people' (as in the CTOS case).

You know, if it takes six years for legal recourse to come about regarding usurpation by forgery of a land title, a process which requires creating a precedent to overturn a higher court judgement (which brings up another issue on evolution of the legal process in this country), and then again, you have an AG saying he reacted because he was human, and then you have enforcement heads coming under investigation, and so on, you start to wonder who's in charge of end-to-end integrity, and more importantly its constant maintenance, of the legal process of this country, especially how it can be subverted by vested parties using an instrument such as the OSA which is meant to protect national and society interests.

Just who is the enemy of the state, nowadays? Bloggers to try to tell the truth, readers who try to analyse matters, the rakyat who suffers one matter after another day after day? Or, those who can do things right for once but seem to have lost their tongue to rebut, limbs to walk the talk about integrity, and brains to see the spiral downhill.

You don't a hammer on an ant unless you think the ant may show where the sugar has been cached.

Posted by: Neil | July 15, 2007 11:47 AM