<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

VI. The Malaysian Government’s Defense of the ISA

Implementation and enforcement of the ISA, 1960, has always been undertaken in the most decent moral conduct and with careful detail, to curb any element who jeopardizes the security of the country. That is why the government only arrests someone under the ISA when there are solid reasons against the person, that they will endanger national security.
—Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, June 28, 2005.¹⁰³

Prime Minister Badawi’s government firmly defends the ISA as an effective tool to maintain the security of Malaysia and continues to ignore the documented human rights violations of those detained under this draconian law.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Mohamed Nazri, responsible for parliamentary affairs and head of the Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights, told Human Rights Watch that the ISA is needed to “promote racial harmony in the country” and that “the government is better equipped to evaluate whether an individual poses a threat to national security than anyone else.”¹⁰⁴ He elaborated that, “They [ISA detainees] have not committed any crime because ISA is preventive. You cannot, therefore, go to court. The government has information that something will happen. We can’t wait till it happens. Lives and property will be lost. So before it happens we detain them.”¹⁰⁵

Malaysian authorities, who once faced international criticism for use of the ISA for political purposes, now feel less pressure. For instance, Datuk Mohamed Nazri told Human Rights Watch that because of Guantánamo the United States no longer criticizes Malaysia’s use of the ISA.¹⁰⁶ U.S. practice of indefinite detention without charge or trial of persons at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere has strengthened Malaysia’s ability to justify its practice of preventive arbitrary detention. The Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Mohamed Bakri Omar, voiced this sentiment when addressing the Conference on Democracy and Global Security in Istanbul, Turkey in June 2005. His statement, made available to Bernama, Malaysian National News Agency, asserted that governments have valid and substantial grounds to enact laws that restrict human rights. Citing the USA Patriot Act and the United Kingdom’s Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2005, he argued that governments must check the excesses of individuals and their civil liberties if the state is to survive. ¹⁰⁷

Parliamentary Caucus Stance

Despite such rhetoric the ISA is not uniformly supported even within the governing party. Notably, some members of the government have advocated for the release of ISA detainees held for over two years. The Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights, comprised of members from the ruling UMNO party and the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP), visited Kamunting Detention Center on June 17, 2005. Shortly thereafter, the caucus issued a public statement calling for a number of improvements:

• the release of ISA detainees who had been in detention for more than two years;
• restoration of rights of detainees in T1 block and Tempat Penerimaan (intake/punishment cells);
• repatriation of foreigners detained under the ISA;
• removal of wire mesh and fiberglass board to allow detainees and their families physical contact; and
• provision of adequate social welfare support for needy family members of detainees.¹⁰⁸

Deputy Internal Security Minister Chia Kwang Chye responded to the caucus’ statement by saying that, “The review [of detention] is always on-going and [is] based on the reports from various authorities concerned whether they are still a threat to national security. If they are still a threat, then the detention will be extended.”¹⁰⁹

The Royal Commission’s View

In April 2005 the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police issued its final report, with 125 recommendations that were made public in May 2005. The report was pathbreaking in many ways, but its recommendations on the ISA were modest. It recommended that by May 2006 the government should:

• amend section 73 of the Internal Security Act to reduce the initial period of detention from sixty to thirty days;  

• present detainees before a magistrate within 24 hours of detention and allow them access to counsel at that time; and

• if “good reason(s)” exist that detainees should not be allowed access to counsel when produced before a magistrate, allow them access to family members and lawyers as soon as possible or within seven days of arrest.¹¹⁰

The Commission, however, failed to recommend the repeal of the ISA, as urged by Suhakam and local and international human rights organizations. The Commission also abstained from critiquing section 8B of the ISA, which bars judicial review of detention on the ground that such a critique was beyond the terms of reference of the Commission, whose mandate was to review the conduct of the police.¹¹¹

As of September 2005, the Malaysian government was reviewing the recommendations. Prime Minister Badawi has appointed five sub-committees to analyze the recommendations. In July 2005, in response to inquiries from members of parliament, he responded that the government is “in principle” committed to implementing all 125 recommendations, but that “implementation will be based on priority [and] suitability” taking into consideration “financial and legal implications.”¹¹² He further noted that the recommendations will be implemented over a period of time ranging from six months to five years as suggested by the Commission.¹¹³

Even if the Malaysian government implements the Commission’s modest recommendations, the ISA will still fail to meet international human rights standards. Prime Minister Badawi should break with the authoritarian governments of the past and declare an end to his country’s practice of detaining suspects without trial. Those suspected of criminal or terrorist activities should be charged and must have their day in court.