Rethinking the ISA

(NST) SECURITY laws providing for detention without trial are extraordinary and unique in their objective. The Internal Security Act 1960 was enacted to apply in instances when the application of ordinary law would be difficult or ineffective.

But through the years, it has been increasingly felt that the ISA is being used against people for whom it was not originally intended. According to its preamble, the act is designed for "the prevention of subversion (and) the suppression of organised violence against persons and property". According to one of the ISA's drafters, the late Professor R.H. Hickling, the act was only intended to be invoked against communist insurgents and those bent on armed struggle.

In this regard, a review of the ISA would be timely. Provisions reflecting the government's intention to uphold civil liberties while maintaining checks and balances may be included, so that the ISA is not arbitrarily applied.

Remove injustices but retain proper safeguards, therefore. Let the ISA be used not against political opponents, reporters, or anyone with a differing viewpoint, but those who threaten the security of the nation and imperil the larger interests of citizens. This would include those involved in terrorist or subversive activities, or who incite racial or religious hatred.

While a review is certainly called for, there ought not be an unseemly haste to abolish the act. Even though the point has been made often enough that existing criminal laws are sufficient to cover "genuine" crimes, there needs to be security legislation to meet either the threat or actual presence of internal subversion, external aggression, or elements within the nation disruptive enough to threaten the life of the country and jeopardise the existence of a democratically elected and constitutionally legitimate government.

The government has a duty to fulfil to the people and must use all means necessary to ensure the nation is secure from all forms of threat, including terrorism. Even the United States and Britain have resorted to laws of preventive detention — the Patriot Act and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, respectively. Nowhere has the importance of such laws been made clearer than in the context of the ongoing reality of terrorism.

But even if they are necessary, such laws must be applied judiciously. Arbitrary application would only result in public backlash and make martyrs of detainees. When people no longer fear the ISA, the act loses its power. And that in itself could pose a grave threat.