Who’s the Boss
Repealing the ISA means nothing because of the existence of the Emergency Ordinance 1969 (EO) that empowers PDRM to detain any individual without the need to produce them in a court of law. ISA requires the Home Minister to approve the detention of an individual, EO does not. Any PDRM officer above the rank of superintendent is authorized to detain any person under the EO.
By Hakim Joe
The announcement to repeal the Internal Security Act 1960 is great. Or is it?
For those who do not know how this law works, here is a brief version of the “ISA for Idiots”. Malaya’s colonial masters first implemented the British version of the ISA or the Internal Security Act in 1948 to combat armed communist insurgencies perpetrated by the MCP (Malayan Communist Party) hordes and the “Malaya was never colonized” de facto master, Sir Edward Gent, called it the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO).
When “never-colonized” Malaya was granted a “non-required-since-we-were-never-colonized” independence in 1957 and after the Malayan Emergency was declared “in confectum” (it means ended in Latin for those uninformed) in 1960, the government decided that this legislation was too good to be repealed and determined that a cosmetic application was urgently required here and hence the name change from the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (consequently repealed) that allows the government to detain any individual without trial (or excuses) for a maximum period of ONE year to the now infamous Internal Security Act (allegedly soon to be repealed) that also allows the government to detain any individual without trial (or excuses) for a period of TWO years (indefinite extension permitted).
Similar to the ERO, the ISA was enacted to combat the MCP in Malaya and similarly, both possess a singularly stated rationale of the legislation and that is specifically utilized to deter the spread of communism in Malaysia. Bapa Malaysia Tunku Abdul Rahman stated that, “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”. Just how far have the present and preceding governments deviated from this promise that it must make TAR turn in his grave.
Singaporean PM, Lee Kuan Yew utterly agreed that it would be such a blatant waste of such a great law for the presiding government that they adopted it immediately after breaking away from Malaysia. In fact, being a perpetual kiasu, they went one up and incarcerated Chia Thye Poh for 23 years without trial (Malaysia’s longest ISA detainee was Shamsudin Sulaiman who was jailed for 8 years). It just shows how lucky we are here in Bolehland. Chia Thye Poh was released from ISA detention in 1989 but was under house arrest another seven times since his release.
When our esteemed PM made this announcement, the Malaysian viewers were fortunate that he decided not to do it with the missus ala the Hari Raya greetings. It was difficult enough not to concentrate looking into his eyes when he was reading from the teleprompter (right to left…right to left…), and we have to do a repeat when the missus did the same (right to left…right to left…).
So what does it mean for the Malaysians? It means that we are getting one for two. Instead of having one law that abuses human rights, now we might get two. In fact, repealing the ISA means nothing because of the existence of the Emergency Ordinance 1969 (EO) that empowers PDRM to detain any individual without the need to produce them in a court of law. ISA detainees go to Kamunting, EO detainees go to Simpang Renggam. ISA requires the Home Minister to approve the detention of an individual, EO does not. Any PDRM officer above the rank of superintendent is authorized to detain any person under the EO. With ISA we have three legitimate individuals who are capable of signing the warrant. Care to guess just how many PDRM Superintendents there are in Malaysia?
With the ISA, an individual is supposedly retained if he is suspected to be a communist (with or without evidence) even though it is widely used for everything. With the EO, anyone can be retained without trial for just about anything and since the PDRM does not have the requirement of charging the detainee, the question of guilt is inconsequential let alone the PDRM having to show cause in front of a judge.
When this is permitted to happen, the arbiters of the word of law rest on the hands of the PDRM and not the Court. So, who is the boss?
Lastly, what will happen if this tabling of the act to repeal the ISA is defeated in Parliament? Don’t be too surprised if this comes to pass, as the Opposition does not have the numbers to defeat it alone. Will we witness the DPM calling for a no-confidence vote against his nemesis and seize power in Putrajaya?
