http://dapmalaysia.org  

DAP calls for a serious consultation process, involving a Cabinet Committee, an all-party parliamentary working group and nation-wide discussions on Suhakam’s most commendable review and recommendations for repeal of ISA and its replacement by a new comprehensive human rights-sensitive national security legislation

Media Statement
by Lim Kit Siang

(Petaling Jaya,  Thursday): Suhakam and in particular its Law Reform Working Group chaired by former Court of Appeal Judge, Datuk K. C. Vohrah, deserve commendation for the  solid work entailed in the  report on the "Review of the Internal Security Act 1960" released yesterday, and its many recommendations which could be grouped into two main  proposals: 

  • Repeal of Internal Security Act and replacement by a new and consolidated national security law which “takes a tough stand on threats to national security (including terrorism)” while being sensitive and “conforms with international human rights principles”,  such as abolishing detention-without-trial powers apart from a maximum of 29-day detention period for purposes of police investigation to be followed by the detainee being charged in court  on a non-bailable charge or his/her release; and
  • Legal  reforms of ISA  and detention regulations  as an  interim measure until the enactment of such a comprehensive national security legislation, to include new provisions such as:

  1. Define clearly the detention criteria under the ISA;

  2. Reduce initial detention period from two years to three months, after which a person may be further detained for a maximum of another three months after which he or she must be charged in court or be released.

  3. Restore judicial review of detention orders;

  4. Require the Advisory Board to review detention orders within three months of a person's  arrest;

  5. Annual report to Parliament on ISA detentions;  

  6. Make ISA valid for one year unless renewed by Parliament annually;

  7. Amendments of detention and lock-up rules and regulations to comply with international human rights standards; and

  8. Expeditious disposal of ISA habeas corpus applications and  requirement of physical presence of detainees before the Court as a safeguard against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and also allow counsel to have ready access to their clients.

 The Suhakam report hit the nail on its head when it pinpointed two fundamental objections to the ISA, viz:

  • Infringement of the principles of human rights; and
  • Abuse in the application of the ISA, subjecting citizens and non-citizens to arbitrary detention and inhuman or degrading treatment while in detention.

The Suhakam report however pulled its punches  when it referred to “two main ways” human rights had been infringed by  “the manner in which sections 8 and 73 of the ISA have been applied to date”, viz:

  • Some individuals have been arrested and detained on grounds which do not satisfy the criteria of being prejudicial to the national security of the country and the detentions were contrary to the purpose of the ISA, such as for allegedly counterfeiting coins, falsifying documents and human trafficking which should be dealt with under the laws creating the relevant criminal offences;

  • The arrest and detention of individuals for the collateral or ulterior purpose of gathering of intelligence that were wholly unconnected with national security issues.

It is a detraction from its full value that the Suhakam report on ISA review felt that discretion is the better part of valour and failed to “call a spade a spade”, as one of the most egregious and  pernicious history of the ISA is  its  stultifying the healthy growth of a vibrant democracy by throttling dissent, whether in the political or civil society spheres as illustrated by the notorious Operation Lalang dragnet of 1987 – when leaders of the opposition, trade unions, educational bodies, NGOs and the civil society were detained when their only “crime” was  not seeing eye-to-eye with the powers-of-the-day on a whole spectrum of national issues. 

The failure to make  any reference to Operation Lalang highlights this  major  weaknesses of the Suhakam report. 

Be that as it may, the Suhakam ISA review report  is still the most authoritative and weighty review of the ISA that has been made in the 43-year history of the ISA, specifically under the statute passed by Parliament establishing Suhakam to “advise and assist the Government” on human rights. 

The question is whether the Suhakam report on ISA review would be treated seriously or whether it would be dismissed with the contempt which had been given to previous Suhakam reports, not only by the Cabinet, Government, Parliament but also by the NGOs.

Cabinet Ministers like the Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar and the Minister for Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Tan Sri Muhyiddin Mohd Yassin have already dismissed the  Suhakam report as irrelevant, saying that the government has no intention to enact a new national security law to replace the ISA and that the ISA had proved effective in dealing with subversion and terrorism as well as  maintaining peace and security. (Utusan Malaysia) 

Are their reactions the result of considered study of the Suhakam recommendations by  the Cabinet or are they the knee-jerk reactions of Ministers whose minds are closed to any proposal “to redress the imbalance between national security and human rights under the ISA” following the Suhakam’s conclusion that “it is clear that the balance between national security and human rights under the ISA is disproportionately weighted in favour of national security”? 

If the Cabinet Ministers are not prepared to have open minds to consider and weigh the Suhakam’s advice on human rights, then what is the use of the government asking Parliament to enact a law to create Suhakam? 

DAP calls for a serious consultation process, involving a Cabinet Committee, an all-party parliamentary working group and nation-wide discussions on Suhakam’s most commendable review and recommendations for repeal of ISA and its replacement by a new comprehensive human rights-sensitive national security legislation – leading to the publication of the reports of the Cabinet Committee and the all-party parliamentary working group, and the allocation of time when Parliament reconvenes in June so that it is  at the top of its agenda to debate the Suhakam report on ISA review. 

(10/4/2003)

* Lim Kit Siang, DAP National Chairman