Repeal of the Internal Security Act

0

WHEN Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak became Prime Minister on April 3, 2009, one of the first things he promised was a comprehensive review of the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960.

He made good his promise when he pronounced the repeal of the Act in a nationwide broadcast last Thursday night. It was no spur-of-the-moment decision as this piece of tough statute had come under the microscope two years ago and the government decided to abolish it after obtaining and studying feedback from the police, armed forces and relevant quarters.

The Prime Minister also declared two new laws would be formulated to replace the ISA “under the spirit and umbrella” of Article 149 of the Federal Constitution. This is primarily to curb the insidious designs of subversive elements and combat terrorism and organised crime to protect public and national security.

According to Najib, the new laws will entail a shorter detention, an extension of which can only be effected through a court order, marking a shift from the executive to the judiciary, except for the law vis-à-vis  terrorism that empowers the minister to act. The main consideration, it would appear, is striking a balance between national security and personal freedom.

Looking back, a number of contemporary politicians had at different times been held under the ISA. This draconian law was inherited from the British who enacted it to contain the communist threat during the Malayan Emergency.

The Act allowing for the arrest of any person without trial or access to due process is seen as against the rule of law and the fundamentals of human rights. Various strata of Malaysian society hold the view that the Act should apply only to terrorists — within the confines of the meaning of the word commonly understood nowadays — and elements seeking to overthrow a legitimate and democratically-elected government through violent means.

Public opinion has decried invoking the Act to mete out punishment disproportionate to the severity of the offence, given that there are other strong legal recourses open to handle criminal, social and political problems in the country.

With the abolishment of the ISA now, Malaysia has ceased to be among a handful countries whose constitutions allow for preventive detention during peace time.

The ISA is not the only law to be rescinded as the Banishment Act 1959 is also to be repealed. Furthermore, reviews will be carried out on the Restricted Residence Act 1993 and the Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984. Annulment of the latter should be welcome news to the publishing houses as “annual renewals will be done away with and replaced by issuance of licence until it is revoked.”

While the Police Act 1967 will be reviewed, taking cognizance of the provision in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution on freedom of assembly, Najib, however, stressed “stern action will remain against street demonstrators” and permit to assemble would be issued under certain criteria.

The Prime Minister’s pronouncement drew a slew of mixed reactions. Some quarters expressed reservations while others welcomed it and as expected, the detractors seized upon the occasion to ridicule and politicise it.

Despite the varying views, abolishing the ISA and similar laws and replacing them with legislations that allow the courts to decide on the question of detention is a huge positive step towards not only upholding human rights and fundamental freedom but also the rule of law.

Even without the ISA, there are still ample laws to deal with individuals or groups that threaten national security. Indeed, if there is evidence to charge anyone, the proper recourse in a democracy — except in time of war — is to give the one so charged his or her day in court. This is basic democratic convention, predicated on openness, transparency and firm but fair application of the law.

The repeal of the ISA is timely and laws enacted in its place should at all times be applied in consonance with the spirit of the constitution.

It is certainly no less important to also point out that national security, safety and rights of the community and the prevailing peace and harmony in the country should not be sacrificed on the altar of unfettered freedom that leads to anarchy, chaos and destruction of properties and lives.

Freedom is our birthright but if we abuse the columns of freedom long enough, the whole structure will collapse. This is as true of government and opposition as it is of individuals.