ISA replacement continues to draw flak for retaining draconian character
(Harakah Daily) — Under the outgoing Internal Security Act, the Home ministry and police have the power to decide the length of detention, but under its proposed replacement, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012, that power is given to the court process without any change to its draconian style.
“The prosecutors just needs to announce that the detainee should be rearrested. The judge has no choice. What difference it has with the ISA?” asked opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim during the second reading of the SOSM.
Anwar said although Pakatan Rakyat welcomed the repeal of ISA, the new SOSM was more repressive and was open to abuse.
“ISA used Attorney-General’s Chamber and police to detain but now (the new bill) uses the court, which doesn’t act like the court,” he said.
Under the SOSM, Anwar pointed out that the court has no choice but to allow mandatory extension of detention pending prosecution. This was despite prime minister Najib Razak’s assurance that redress was available for detainees to challenge their arrest.
Another provision which allows the police and prosecution team’s right not to compel to strict requirements in producing evidences, testimonies and “sensitive information” in court under the Evidence Act, said Anwar, was a return to the former act’s method, where solid court-admissible evidence was not needed.
Debating the SOSM earlier, Anwar urged Najib to table the new law to a parliamentary select committee before it was further debated citing limited debate time.
Meanwhile, on Home minister Hishamuddin Hussein’s statement that the new SOSM “would not hamper the abilities of police to protect the safety of public”, Bagan member of parliament Lim Guan Eng said the spirit of ISA was still alive as the police retained the power to arrest anyone for whatever reason.
The Penang chief minister also blasted the new law as the result of “cut-and-paste” work.
“In the introduction of this new law, it was mentioned, ‘action has been taken and further action is threatened… to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of anything by law established.’ This is another example of drafting laws through cut and paste,” he said.
Lim said the term “anything” should be specified, not to mean something which exists “only in government’s imagination”.
