In October of 2009, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein and his ministry officials met for about three hours with representatives from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Bar Council, the Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club, National Council for Women’s Organisation and the National Civics Bureau.
The purpose of this three-hour meeting was to discuss amendments to the ISA. Hishammuddin acknowledged there were parties like the Bar Council, which still wanted it to be abolished.
“We told the council to look at the new ISA first because we are confident they and many others will be satisfied with the changes that we will be making,” he had told reporters then.
What happened to the 2009 amendments
Hishammuddin said the ISA amendments would revolve around five areas – the length of detention, rights and treatment of detainees and their families, the power of the Home Minister, the use of ISA for political reasons and detention without trial. Lawmakers would start fine-tuning the amendments to enable the Bill to be tabled in Parliament before the session ended on December 15, 2009.
Safe to say, the amendments to the ISA never made it to Parliament, and two years down the road, we are served with what the Bar Council suggested back in October 2009 – the abolishing of the ISA.
This is one of many examples that any promise made by Prime Minister Najib Razak’s administration will begin with initial fireworks, and after the lustre of that disappears, Malaysia is back at square one. For true reforms to happen under Najib’s tenure, real action needs to be meted out immediately.
The abuse began under Mahathir
The ISA was enforce by an Act of Parliament back in 1960. The first Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, defined the purpose of the Act as to be used solely against the communists. He said, “My Cabinet colleagues and I gave a solemn promise to Parliament and the nation that the immense powers given to the government under the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition and silence lawful dissent.”
The third Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Onn, stated at the same time that his administration had enforced the Act only with a view to curbing communist activity, and not to repress “lawful political opposition and democratic citizen activity”.
As noble as the promises made by the past prime ministers that the ISA would only be used against the communists, it was conveniently forgotten by fourth prime minister Mahathir Mohamad who used the ISA against his political rivals and who-so-ever dared go against him and the BN government.
Bear in mind, during his tenure as prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad was also the Home Minister and it is the Home Minister who has full authority to deem if anyone should be detained under the ISA, which is feared because it allows the government to detain anyone without trial for an indefinite period of time.
So for Mahathir to say that the ISA was never used to detain political rivals is totally untrue. Can Mahathir justify his actions as Prime Minister during the 1987 Operations Lalang, for example? Where were the communists? But in large presence were opposition leaders and these included Karpal Singh, Lim Kit Siang, Mahfuz Omar, Mat Sabu and scores of others. If this was not political, what is? If this was not suppressing dissenters, what is?
Just like the 2009 ‘amendments’, it might take another 2 years
Since 2005, 10,662 people have been arrested under the ISA in the past 44 years, 4,139 of whom were issued with formal detention orders and 2,066 were served with restriction orders governing their activities and where they live. In addition, 12 people were executed for offences under the ISA between 1984 and 1993.
One of the most recent application of ISA was against Hindu activists belonging to the group Hindraf who spoke out against government policies that resulted in Malaysian Indians being marginalized and sidelined from the country’s development. In response, former prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi personally signed the detention order that allowed the leaders of Hindraf to be detained without trial for two years, with the option for the detention order to be renewed indefinitely.
Thus, the ISA which was meant to contain and stop the communist resurgence of the 1960s was used to stifle and control the political landscape in Malaysia. It was used to maintain the BN’s strangle-hold on Malaysian politics for 50 over years. Thus, the ISA allowed the growth of corruption within Malaysian society, supported by the government of the day.
A mere announcement to abolish the ISA is not enough. Two years ago, a set of amendments were supposed to be tabled in Parliament. What happened to those amendments? Can the Home Minister explain what happened to the proposed amendments?
Suffice to say, back in 2009 Najib Razak broke his promise to amend the ISA. Now, in 2011; Najib promises to abolish the ISA but in return, two new laws will be tabled. Indeed, no one seems to be able to decide when these two new laws will be tabled. Dates stretch all the way up till March 2012 but do not be surprised if it takes another two years for Malaysia to see real reforms, if any.
Swapping one evil for two
A clear sign of reform would come in two ways. Firstly, an act of Parliament to abolish the ISA, and secondly, a public disclosure of the two new laws.
In truth, it would have been easier for the ISA to be abolished during the years Barisan Nasional had two-thirds majority in Parliament. Yet, they chose to keep it intact even when the public outcry for the Act to be abolish reached fever pitch.
This shows that BN does not really pay heed to the rakyat or populace. Instead, it only moves when it is advantageous or there is self-benefit to do so. What guarantee do Malaysians have that the current BN parliamentarians will support the move to abolish the ISA as announced by Najib Razak?
Secondly, the announcement that two new laws will be enacted to replace the ISA shows total insincerity on Najib’s part. Why swap an evil for two evils?
Another toothless Advisory Board?
Yet, if there are any new preemptive prevention laws, then they may or should take into account Article 151 of the Malaysian Constitution, which gives to any person detained without trial (under the special powers against subversion) certain administrative rights.
Under Article 151, the authority, on whose order a person is detained, shall as soon as may be, inform the detainee of the grounds of detention and the allegations of fact on which the order is based. The detainee shall also be given an opportunity within three months, of making representations against the order to an Advisory Board.
However, the Advisory Board as the name implies is not a court.
Its determinations are also mere recommendations that the government is under no obligation to accept. It may also be handicapped in its deliberations by the discretionary power of the government to withhold facts, the disclosure of which would, in the executive’s opinion be against national interest.
The Advisory Board, though in line with Article 151, would be the back-door clause for the Home Ministry to keep someone in detention longer than needed – without trial. How different is this than the existing ISA?
So, this is a factor that Malaysians and legal eagles should watch out for and not allow the Najib administration to slip past. The point is, will the BN listen or will they do what they did to the Bar Council in 2009. Talk a lot but do nothing!
So it is clear that to abolish the ISA would take longer than expected. Promises made in the past to amend it have yet to be acted on. Promises were also made in the past on how the ISA will be used, yet these too were abused.
And along with even more promises to abolish it, we are served with two new laws. What kind of reforms should Malaysia look forward to given such an awful backdrop and track record of unreliability? Maybe none at all.
– Malaysia Chronicle
