Recently there are many voices urging for the abolishment of the Internal Security Act (ISA). The Internal Security Act should be repealed and not reviewed as suggested by Gerakan acting president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon, said Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng. Using analogies, he said yesterday it was impossible to make a bicycle fly or Satan to become good.
On May 23, Dr Koh, who was former Chief Minister, suggested that the Government set up a Parliamentary Select Committee to examine the various aspects of the ISA. He said the review should make the Act compliant with basic human rights principles with clear criteria and safeguards. Guan Eng said it was internationally recognised that the detention of persons without trial was in violation of the rule of law, human rights and the principles of a democratic government.
What is ISA?
The Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) is a preventive detention law in force in Malaysia. Any person may be detained by the police for up to 60 days without trial for an act which allegedly prejudices the security of the country or any part thereof. After 60 days, one may be further detained for a period of two years each, to be approved by the Minister of Home Affairs, thus making indefinite detention without trial. ISA is provided in the constitution by virtue of article 149 – Law of Subversion that provides special detention, allowing this law to freezes the fundemental liberties of a person in respect to article 5,9,10 and 13. (if im not mistaken – my constitutional law is becoming transparent and likely to say goodbye)
The issue was that, it infringed the rights of a person and against the spirit of the constitution. but practically the constitution needs to be read together with regarded clauses and cannot be read in one-way. but if you are saying that it against the principle of modern democratic system ( i mean the real one, not the US democratic system – guantanamo – hello Mr.President stop bullshitting yourself with the name of democracy ) , i think ISA needs to be reviewed, but unfortunately it should not be abolished.
ISA Is Still Relevant
We need law such as ISA since it has been proven that ISA has successfully safeguards our country from national menace. on the contrary, humanly speaking, just the system may be too harsh and deny several basic rights of human mankind. we know that laws are made by the parliament, and executed by the cabinet. though, i wonder the position of the judiciary is in the law making process. are they be given any place to express their views?
Yes we do exersice the principle of separation of powers. judiciary should be insulated from the parliament, so the executive. but considering their (judges) position as the group of people who are going to implement the laws, i think they should be consulted before one law could be passed. it is not to violates the principle of Separation Of Powers, but sometimes we need to hear what are the judges’ opinions on certain law, thus the law making and implementation process will be executed smoothly. judges should be given a freedom to express their disagreement if the law enacted by the government inhibits the element of absurdity and if the laws are not suitable to be imposed.
Currently the judiciary only have power to strike out laws if the laws are unconstitutional but their powers are limited by the constitution, which means in this ISA case, article 149 already provides such law to be in force, hence the court can’t disregard such law on the ground that it was unconstitutional. judges know whats best for the judiciary. i think it is time for us to look on to those issues. we cannot just let it flow without an answer. the people are talking about it…
CHANGE WE BELIEVE IN
Filed under: ISA, Law And Constitution
I thinks the act is okay, for a start. But the problem is the judgement of authority to implement the act and how they are going to implement it. And also for whom. For a certain situation, the act needs to exist but for sometimes, it has been used in some ways that creates bad paradigm of people. The tendency of “kids judgement” and the abuse of act are exist in people mind. Frequent implementation and no appropriate reason and time(by comparing with current situation) will always contribute to people prejudice. That is why I would always emphasize that the problem is not 100% because of the act (yes, there are some things I would suggest to consider) but it is a problem of the one who uses it. The way it is implemented, the people are being implemented and the reason of implementation are not strong and not reasonable and sometimes, ridiculous.
The idea of reviewing the Act compliant with basic human rights principles with clear criteria and safeguards is basically, a good effort to build a constraint of implementation, or in other words, preventing abuse of act, but it does not really solve the problem IF the authority still use it in manners that I have mentioned above. But as I have no position or do not have appropriate fundamental laws, to obtain consultation of judges is maybe one good way of enhancing it. But it must be ensured that there is no bias objectives and for the sake of the people.
this issue must be brought before the judges. im sure the rakyat will be satisfy if this matter is consulted with the judges and without no bias of course. but it seems to be impossible since the government may not agree with this.
yes….aku sokong kalau hakim di beri peluang utk bersama…aku pro BN!!!!hahahaha!