INTERNAL SECURITY ACT 1960 – THE HISTORY
The Internal Security Act 1960 was first drafted by R.H Hickling. It was then only enacted as law in Malaysia. The act had allowed re-evaluation on itself when was first imposed; however, it had gone through amendments for more than 20 times and the current act was then passed. Absolute authority is given to the Minister of Domestic Affair, enabling him to seize any individual, without referring to court.
What is ISA? To understand Malaysia’s Internal Security Act (ISA) one must first of all comprehend Malaysian history – and the history of the ISA goes back to the time of the World War II (WW II)
Malaya, then called Malaysia, just like the other countries around this region – save for Thailand – fell to Japanese during WWII. But the British were not about to give in that easily. They parachuted British Army officers into the jungles of Malaya to organize a resistance movement and that saw the birth of Malayan People’s Anti Japanese Army (MPAJA). The British officers not only trained the MPAJA but also supplied it with arms and ammunition but they never really managed to kick the Japanese out.
After the Japanese surrendered, the British disbanded the MPAJA and tried to repossess all the weapons. The slimy buggers, however, never surrendered anything. They declared that they had lost most of the weapons and buried them in the jungles to be used at a later date.
Eventually, the British colonial government returned to Malayan shores but the MPAJA had by then re-organized itself into another army, a Communist fighting force. In fact, many within the ranks of the original MPAJA were actually Communists who aspired for an independent Malaya. Indonesia had shown that independence was possible when it declared its independence as soon as the Japanese left making it impossible for the Dutch colonial masters to return.
We can say the British trained and equipped the Communist army into what it was. But the British were not about to go home and instead banned the Malayan Communist Party. The Communist then retaliated by declaring war on the British – the beginning of the Malayan Emergency.
The Emergency was a trying time for Malaya. Many Malayans as well as British lost their lives, not to mention property razed to the ground, even police stations.
In 1957, Malaya finally gained its independence from Britain while the war with the Communist Terrorists was still raging. The first Parliamentary Election was held in 1959 and, in 1960, Parliament decided to enact law to combat the Communist Terrorists.
The Deputy Prime Minister then, the late Tun Abdul Razak, tabled the proposed new law, the Internal Security Act, which was primarily aimed at overcoming the ongoing and, the looks of it, never-ending problem with the Communist Terrorists.
The Member of Parliament for Ipoh, Seevanisagam, stood up to question Tun Razak on the purpose of this new law. Tun Razak replied that the Communist Terrorists operating along the Malaysian-Thai border was a serious problem that needed to be overcome. There were an estimated 580 Communist Terrorists operating in Malaya which included small groups in the States of Pahang and Terengganu.
Tun Razak assured Parliament that the ISA would only be used against these Communist Terrorists. It was a very specific law with a very specific objective in mind.
Under Article 149 of the Constitution, Parliament, in dire situations, can enact laws to counter it. The Communist insurgency was certainly within this category and the ISA was enacted under Article 149 of the Constitution.
Article 149 is very specific. It is to counter subversion. And the definition of subversion is if there is a religious rebellion, racial disharmony, or Communist insurgency. And Article 149 can be invoked in the event that certain “action has been taken by a substantial body of persons”.
Today, there are no more Communist in Malaysia, and certainly no Communist Terrorists in our jungles. And Malaysia is far from being subverted from any “substantial body of persons”. But the ISA continues to be used against Malaysians.
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT 1960 – VIEWED FROM THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVES
Without any doubts, the ISA has become irrelevant and must be abolished. Among other things, below are some of the arguments for the abolishment of the ISA:
1. The ISA is against the rule of law.
2. The ISA has outlived its purpose.
¨ THE ISA IS AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW
Rule of Law will only be introduced and implemented as laws which are fair and reasonable, protect and promote human rights, and they must be consistent with the basic principles of democracy. However, the must be a distinction between “rule of law” and “rule by law”. Even though they sound similar, there is a fine line in between.
In the case of the “rule of law”, any law implemented is always fair and reasonable. It conforms to the democratic process and principles, and it protects and promotes fundamental human rights.
“Rule by law”, however, is exactly opposite of what has been mentioned. It implies the practice of bad laws that contravene democratic principles, and they are far from fair and reasonable.
Why the ISA is against the “rule of law”? To put it simply, it violates one of the basic tenets of the “rule of law”, that is, “a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty”. And how does the ISA contravene the “rule of law”? Normally, only when a person is charged in court and found guilty by the judge, can any punishment be imposed on him. If he is not given the opportunity to be heard in court, he is deemed not guilty in law, and he is not liable to any punishment. However, an ISA detainee is never given any fair and open court trial. He might be detained simply because the Home Minister suspects that he is likely to be a threat to the internal security. The Home Minister wields tremendously great and almost unfettered power under the ISA for detaining persons without trial. How can such inhumane law be allowed to remain in the statue books of a democracy supposedly committed to the “rule of law”?
¨ THE ISA HAS OUTLIVED ITS PURPOSE
The Internal Security Act 1960 was introduced to replace the Emergency Regulations 1948, which were invoked by the British colonial masters in their combat against the Communist activities. The ISA was meant for the sole purpose of continuing the operations to quell the armed struggle of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). It was in fact wartime legislation, only meant to be resorted to when the country was at war.
These days, however, the ISA is subject to frequent abuse. More often than not, it has been invoked in cases which have nothing to do with the armed struggle of the CPM.
Dr Rais Yatim, the former Law Minister of the Prime Minister’s Office, wrote in his thesis for his doctorate to the effect that:
“It is a mockery that whilst the British only resorts to detention without trial during emergency, in Malaysia, such power is being exercised in the daily administration of the country. In the legal justification, our government chooses to use on a long-term basis, this formidable power conferred by the ISA. This, in fact, is solely a strategic policy of decision.”
ARTICLE 5 – LIBERTY OF THE PERSON
Based on the article 5 of the Federal Constitutions, the right that was stated has been violated by the legislation which the Internal Security Act (ISA), 1960. The right is obviously violated when arresting people can be done without any warrant which was mentioned on;
Section 45 Internal Security Act 1960: “Any police officer may without warrant arrest person suspected of the commission of an offence against this part or of being a person ordered in pursuance of this part to be detain”.
Section 73(1) Internal Security Act 1960: “Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person in respect of whom he has to believe that there are grounds which would justify his detention under section 8; and that he has acted or is about to act or likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to maintenance of essential services therein or the economic life thereof.”
Secondly, the person who was arrested is only based on the suspicion of the probability that they may commit a subversive act in future, and so that they can be interrogated. It is up to the ISA detainees then to prove they are innocent. But the ISA detainees will not be told of what they have committed so they will be not be able to defend themselves during the interrogation but can only do so after they have been sent to Kamunting. And they are sent to Kamunting after the government is convinced they are guilty, which will be established during the interrogation
Thirdly, the person who was arrested can not defense herself because they can not communicate with anybody either their lawyer or family members in duration 60 days. Although the government says the detainees were informed of the reason of their arrest - that they are a threat to nation security - but the government is not obligated to tell them what act they performed which makes them a threat. So, they cannot prove that they are innocent before the court and their right is violated again when this situation is against the law of natural right - “no one is guilty until proven guilty”.
As a conclusion, ISA conducts a total violation to the human rights and it is very cruel and immoral. The detainees will be tortured for 60 days for their act, that is yet to be proven either guilty or not. As a result, the detainees loose their liberties and their rights and they will suffer from their arrest.
ARTICLE 9 – PROHIBITION OF BANISHMENT AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
Article 9(2) Federal Constitutions: “Subject to Clause (3) and to any law relating to the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order, public health, or the punishment of the offenders, every citizen has the right to move freely throughout the Federation and to reside in any part thereof.”
Based on the article above, all people have right to go aware they need. However the Internal Security Act has violated their right if they were arrested under the act. The person who was arrested under the act could not move freely even though they have free from their arrest.
According to the story of Dr Badrul Amin Bahron, one of the ten Keadilan and Reformasi Activist which was arrested in the case of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, he was released from the Kamunting Camp under Section 10 Internal Security Act – Suspension of detention order; but although he was released but there were several conditions for him:
He must stay only around the area of Gombak.
He is prohibited to change his residential address to any other place without written consent from the Chief Police Officer;
He is prohibited from leaving the area where the order of restriction is imposed on him without written consent from the Chief Police Officer;
He must always inform the District Superintendent of the area of the order of restriction is imposed on him about his address;
He must report and sign the log book at the nearest police station daily from 8.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.;
He must stay inside his residence in the area where the order of restriction is imposed on him from 12.00 a.m. to 5.00 a.m. daily unless there is a written consent from the District Superintendent;
He must keep the peace and his best behavior;
He is prohibited to give speech in any public gathering or holding any position or taking part in any activity or acting as advisor to a union or political party or taking part in any political activity except for voting in an election which he is qualified to do so.
Could we imagine how can we live in this situation? All the conditions were burdens to him and to his families. The conditions that were given by the police restraint to Article 9 in the constitution that stated about our right on freedom of movement. We have to report everywhere we wanted to go and whatever we want to do. The act made us as a robot, being controlled in whatever situation. So, these conditions were just violation to our right as stated in the Federal Constitutions.
ARTICLE 10- FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION
Article 10(1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4)-
a) Every citizen has the right of freedom to speech and expression;
b) All citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;
c) All citizens have the right to form association.
Based on the rights that are stated in the article above, the ISA act has actually violated the fundamental rights that were given by the constitution.
Among violation committed on Clause 1(a) of Article 10 was the case of student demonstration 1974, where the issue of famine resurrected in Baling, Kedah. Several leaders of the students’ movement were arrested due to public speeches regarding to the issue. One of the famous leaders of student movement at that time was Hishammuddin Rais who was the general secretary of University Malaya Student Association. He was among the activist that was arrested under the ISA act. From this situation we can see how the ISA act violated the freedom of speech. Other activists such as Anwar Ibrahim, Kamarazaman Yacob, Ibrahim Ali and Adi Satria were also arrested under this act after they delivered public speeches regarding to the issue. They were arrested when the government strongly believed that the speech of them would harm the national security.
Pertaining to the right to assemble peaceably, we can view on the case of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim. When he was sacked from his position and the cabinet of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, there were so many street demonstrations and peace assemblies that were organized by the opposition leader and human rights activists. Most of the organizers and the people who were in the assemblies were arrested under the ISA and based on their arrest, what can we conclude about their detention? Did they assemble with arms and without peace which led to their arrest? We think we can simply understand that our fundamental right to assemble peacefully was violated by the ISA act.
There were so many cases that we can view as the example for violating our fundamental right which was stated in the constitution. Nowadays, ISA was created as instrument to restraint the public voice. The government was totally restraint our right to voice out our idea. Our right was being violated by the ISA and once again we loose our fundamental right as a human in our own country.
CONCLUSION -THE ISA SHOULD BE ABOLISHED
Every democracy must uphold the rule of law. Detention without trial is undoubtedly inconsistent with the principles of fair trial.
Today, when the Minister resorts to the ISA to detain some individuals, more often then not, it is done largely out of political motives, frequently under the pretext of ‘national security’, ‘national interest’, or ‘public order’. The expressions such as being prejudicial to ‘public order’ or ‘national security’ commonly appear in the Constitutions. Their implications are so wide-ranging that they cover any political ideas and activities which are not palatable to the power-that-be.
In the last 30 years or so, the ISA has become the most complete and comprehensive political tool for those in power. The ruling elite are not answerable to the court when it invokes the use of the ISA. The ISA has often been used to control the mass media, public-interest groups, political parties and so on.
At the same time, ISA has a profound impact upon the attitude, ideas and conduct of the citizens. This law does not predict well for the future of the rule of law in our country. It is a deadly weapon against those who advocate human rights, justice, and fairness. Therefore, it is imperative that the ISA must be abolished.
So, in our opinion we have to against the ISA because:
§ The ISA violates fundamental rights. The ISA provides for “preventative detention” without trial for an indefinite period. This goes against the principles of justice and undermines the rule of law.
§ The ISA goes against the rights of a person to defend themselves in an open and fair trial. The person is punished for 60 days for interrogation without trial access to lawyers person is innocent till proven guilty but under the ISA the person is guilty until she or he toes the line of the government of the day.
§ The ISA is immoral, cruel, condones torture and humiliation. It is opposed by all major religions practiced in Malaysia.
Lastly, there is no need for the ISA because there are existing laws where a person can be tried and convicted. The ISA is above the Constitution though it was enacted under the Constitution. In short, I really agree with the idea of Raja Petra, the former ISA detainee that the ISA is a law of the jungle where Constitutional rights does not exist – most apt considering; in the first place, it was enacted to fight those Communist in the jungle.
The Internal Security Act 1960 was first drafted by R.H Hickling. It was then only enacted as law in Malaysia. The act had allowed re-evaluation on itself when was first imposed; however, it had gone through amendments for more than 20 times and the current act was then passed. Absolute authority is given to the Minister of Domestic Affair, enabling him to seize any individual, without referring to court.
What is ISA? To understand Malaysia’s Internal Security Act (ISA) one must first of all comprehend Malaysian history – and the history of the ISA goes back to the time of the World War II (WW II)
Malaya, then called Malaysia, just like the other countries around this region – save for Thailand – fell to Japanese during WWII. But the British were not about to give in that easily. They parachuted British Army officers into the jungles of Malaya to organize a resistance movement and that saw the birth of Malayan People’s Anti Japanese Army (MPAJA). The British officers not only trained the MPAJA but also supplied it with arms and ammunition but they never really managed to kick the Japanese out.
After the Japanese surrendered, the British disbanded the MPAJA and tried to repossess all the weapons. The slimy buggers, however, never surrendered anything. They declared that they had lost most of the weapons and buried them in the jungles to be used at a later date.
Eventually, the British colonial government returned to Malayan shores but the MPAJA had by then re-organized itself into another army, a Communist fighting force. In fact, many within the ranks of the original MPAJA were actually Communists who aspired for an independent Malaya. Indonesia had shown that independence was possible when it declared its independence as soon as the Japanese left making it impossible for the Dutch colonial masters to return.
We can say the British trained and equipped the Communist army into what it was. But the British were not about to go home and instead banned the Malayan Communist Party. The Communist then retaliated by declaring war on the British – the beginning of the Malayan Emergency.
The Emergency was a trying time for Malaya. Many Malayans as well as British lost their lives, not to mention property razed to the ground, even police stations.
In 1957, Malaya finally gained its independence from Britain while the war with the Communist Terrorists was still raging. The first Parliamentary Election was held in 1959 and, in 1960, Parliament decided to enact law to combat the Communist Terrorists.
The Deputy Prime Minister then, the late Tun Abdul Razak, tabled the proposed new law, the Internal Security Act, which was primarily aimed at overcoming the ongoing and, the looks of it, never-ending problem with the Communist Terrorists.
The Member of Parliament for Ipoh, Seevanisagam, stood up to question Tun Razak on the purpose of this new law. Tun Razak replied that the Communist Terrorists operating along the Malaysian-Thai border was a serious problem that needed to be overcome. There were an estimated 580 Communist Terrorists operating in Malaya which included small groups in the States of Pahang and Terengganu.
Tun Razak assured Parliament that the ISA would only be used against these Communist Terrorists. It was a very specific law with a very specific objective in mind.
Under Article 149 of the Constitution, Parliament, in dire situations, can enact laws to counter it. The Communist insurgency was certainly within this category and the ISA was enacted under Article 149 of the Constitution.
Article 149 is very specific. It is to counter subversion. And the definition of subversion is if there is a religious rebellion, racial disharmony, or Communist insurgency. And Article 149 can be invoked in the event that certain “action has been taken by a substantial body of persons”.
Today, there are no more Communist in Malaysia, and certainly no Communist Terrorists in our jungles. And Malaysia is far from being subverted from any “substantial body of persons”. But the ISA continues to be used against Malaysians.
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT 1960 – VIEWED FROM THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVES
Without any doubts, the ISA has become irrelevant and must be abolished. Among other things, below are some of the arguments for the abolishment of the ISA:
1. The ISA is against the rule of law.
2. The ISA has outlived its purpose.
¨ THE ISA IS AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW
Rule of Law will only be introduced and implemented as laws which are fair and reasonable, protect and promote human rights, and they must be consistent with the basic principles of democracy. However, the must be a distinction between “rule of law” and “rule by law”. Even though they sound similar, there is a fine line in between.
In the case of the “rule of law”, any law implemented is always fair and reasonable. It conforms to the democratic process and principles, and it protects and promotes fundamental human rights.
“Rule by law”, however, is exactly opposite of what has been mentioned. It implies the practice of bad laws that contravene democratic principles, and they are far from fair and reasonable.
Why the ISA is against the “rule of law”? To put it simply, it violates one of the basic tenets of the “rule of law”, that is, “a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty”. And how does the ISA contravene the “rule of law”? Normally, only when a person is charged in court and found guilty by the judge, can any punishment be imposed on him. If he is not given the opportunity to be heard in court, he is deemed not guilty in law, and he is not liable to any punishment. However, an ISA detainee is never given any fair and open court trial. He might be detained simply because the Home Minister suspects that he is likely to be a threat to the internal security. The Home Minister wields tremendously great and almost unfettered power under the ISA for detaining persons without trial. How can such inhumane law be allowed to remain in the statue books of a democracy supposedly committed to the “rule of law”?
¨ THE ISA HAS OUTLIVED ITS PURPOSE
The Internal Security Act 1960 was introduced to replace the Emergency Regulations 1948, which were invoked by the British colonial masters in their combat against the Communist activities. The ISA was meant for the sole purpose of continuing the operations to quell the armed struggle of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). It was in fact wartime legislation, only meant to be resorted to when the country was at war.
These days, however, the ISA is subject to frequent abuse. More often than not, it has been invoked in cases which have nothing to do with the armed struggle of the CPM.
Dr Rais Yatim, the former Law Minister of the Prime Minister’s Office, wrote in his thesis for his doctorate to the effect that:
“It is a mockery that whilst the British only resorts to detention without trial during emergency, in Malaysia, such power is being exercised in the daily administration of the country. In the legal justification, our government chooses to use on a long-term basis, this formidable power conferred by the ISA. This, in fact, is solely a strategic policy of decision.”
ARTICLE 5 – LIBERTY OF THE PERSON
Based on the article 5 of the Federal Constitutions, the right that was stated has been violated by the legislation which the Internal Security Act (ISA), 1960. The right is obviously violated when arresting people can be done without any warrant which was mentioned on;
Section 45 Internal Security Act 1960: “Any police officer may without warrant arrest person suspected of the commission of an offence against this part or of being a person ordered in pursuance of this part to be detain”.
Section 73(1) Internal Security Act 1960: “Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person in respect of whom he has to believe that there are grounds which would justify his detention under section 8; and that he has acted or is about to act or likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to maintenance of essential services therein or the economic life thereof.”
Secondly, the person who was arrested is only based on the suspicion of the probability that they may commit a subversive act in future, and so that they can be interrogated. It is up to the ISA detainees then to prove they are innocent. But the ISA detainees will not be told of what they have committed so they will be not be able to defend themselves during the interrogation but can only do so after they have been sent to Kamunting. And they are sent to Kamunting after the government is convinced they are guilty, which will be established during the interrogation
Thirdly, the person who was arrested can not defense herself because they can not communicate with anybody either their lawyer or family members in duration 60 days. Although the government says the detainees were informed of the reason of their arrest - that they are a threat to nation security - but the government is not obligated to tell them what act they performed which makes them a threat. So, they cannot prove that they are innocent before the court and their right is violated again when this situation is against the law of natural right - “no one is guilty until proven guilty”.
As a conclusion, ISA conducts a total violation to the human rights and it is very cruel and immoral. The detainees will be tortured for 60 days for their act, that is yet to be proven either guilty or not. As a result, the detainees loose their liberties and their rights and they will suffer from their arrest.
ARTICLE 9 – PROHIBITION OF BANISHMENT AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
Article 9(2) Federal Constitutions: “Subject to Clause (3) and to any law relating to the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order, public health, or the punishment of the offenders, every citizen has the right to move freely throughout the Federation and to reside in any part thereof.”
Based on the article above, all people have right to go aware they need. However the Internal Security Act has violated their right if they were arrested under the act. The person who was arrested under the act could not move freely even though they have free from their arrest.
According to the story of Dr Badrul Amin Bahron, one of the ten Keadilan and Reformasi Activist which was arrested in the case of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, he was released from the Kamunting Camp under Section 10 Internal Security Act – Suspension of detention order; but although he was released but there were several conditions for him:
He must stay only around the area of Gombak.
He is prohibited to change his residential address to any other place without written consent from the Chief Police Officer;
He is prohibited from leaving the area where the order of restriction is imposed on him without written consent from the Chief Police Officer;
He must always inform the District Superintendent of the area of the order of restriction is imposed on him about his address;
He must report and sign the log book at the nearest police station daily from 8.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.;
He must stay inside his residence in the area where the order of restriction is imposed on him from 12.00 a.m. to 5.00 a.m. daily unless there is a written consent from the District Superintendent;
He must keep the peace and his best behavior;
He is prohibited to give speech in any public gathering or holding any position or taking part in any activity or acting as advisor to a union or political party or taking part in any political activity except for voting in an election which he is qualified to do so.
Could we imagine how can we live in this situation? All the conditions were burdens to him and to his families. The conditions that were given by the police restraint to Article 9 in the constitution that stated about our right on freedom of movement. We have to report everywhere we wanted to go and whatever we want to do. The act made us as a robot, being controlled in whatever situation. So, these conditions were just violation to our right as stated in the Federal Constitutions.
ARTICLE 10- FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION
Article 10(1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4)-
a) Every citizen has the right of freedom to speech and expression;
b) All citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;
c) All citizens have the right to form association.
Based on the rights that are stated in the article above, the ISA act has actually violated the fundamental rights that were given by the constitution.
Among violation committed on Clause 1(a) of Article 10 was the case of student demonstration 1974, where the issue of famine resurrected in Baling, Kedah. Several leaders of the students’ movement were arrested due to public speeches regarding to the issue. One of the famous leaders of student movement at that time was Hishammuddin Rais who was the general secretary of University Malaya Student Association. He was among the activist that was arrested under the ISA act. From this situation we can see how the ISA act violated the freedom of speech. Other activists such as Anwar Ibrahim, Kamarazaman Yacob, Ibrahim Ali and Adi Satria were also arrested under this act after they delivered public speeches regarding to the issue. They were arrested when the government strongly believed that the speech of them would harm the national security.
Pertaining to the right to assemble peaceably, we can view on the case of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim. When he was sacked from his position and the cabinet of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, there were so many street demonstrations and peace assemblies that were organized by the opposition leader and human rights activists. Most of the organizers and the people who were in the assemblies were arrested under the ISA and based on their arrest, what can we conclude about their detention? Did they assemble with arms and without peace which led to their arrest? We think we can simply understand that our fundamental right to assemble peacefully was violated by the ISA act.
There were so many cases that we can view as the example for violating our fundamental right which was stated in the constitution. Nowadays, ISA was created as instrument to restraint the public voice. The government was totally restraint our right to voice out our idea. Our right was being violated by the ISA and once again we loose our fundamental right as a human in our own country.
CONCLUSION -THE ISA SHOULD BE ABOLISHED
Every democracy must uphold the rule of law. Detention without trial is undoubtedly inconsistent with the principles of fair trial.
Today, when the Minister resorts to the ISA to detain some individuals, more often then not, it is done largely out of political motives, frequently under the pretext of ‘national security’, ‘national interest’, or ‘public order’. The expressions such as being prejudicial to ‘public order’ or ‘national security’ commonly appear in the Constitutions. Their implications are so wide-ranging that they cover any political ideas and activities which are not palatable to the power-that-be.
In the last 30 years or so, the ISA has become the most complete and comprehensive political tool for those in power. The ruling elite are not answerable to the court when it invokes the use of the ISA. The ISA has often been used to control the mass media, public-interest groups, political parties and so on.
At the same time, ISA has a profound impact upon the attitude, ideas and conduct of the citizens. This law does not predict well for the future of the rule of law in our country. It is a deadly weapon against those who advocate human rights, justice, and fairness. Therefore, it is imperative that the ISA must be abolished.
So, in our opinion we have to against the ISA because:
§ The ISA violates fundamental rights. The ISA provides for “preventative detention” without trial for an indefinite period. This goes against the principles of justice and undermines the rule of law.
§ The ISA goes against the rights of a person to defend themselves in an open and fair trial. The person is punished for 60 days for interrogation without trial access to lawyers person is innocent till proven guilty but under the ISA the person is guilty until she or he toes the line of the government of the day.
§ The ISA is immoral, cruel, condones torture and humiliation. It is opposed by all major religions practiced in Malaysia.
Lastly, there is no need for the ISA because there are existing laws where a person can be tried and convicted. The ISA is above the Constitution though it was enacted under the Constitution. In short, I really agree with the idea of Raja Petra, the former ISA detainee that the ISA is a law of the jungle where Constitutional rights does not exist – most apt considering; in the first place, it was enacted to fight those Communist in the jungle.
No comments:
Post a Comment