INTERNAL SECURITY ACT

The Minister of Home Affairs does not seem to be aware of the fact that SUHAKAM has made certain recommendations to amend the INTERNAL SECURITY ACT 1960. My question to the Honorable Minister tabled on 5th May , 2008 is as follows;

“Apakah tindakan yang diambil berkenaan dengan laporan SUHAKAM berkenaan dengan cadangan pindaan kepada Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri 1960. Sekiranya tiada tindakan, kenapa?”

The reply I received is as follows.

“Untuk makluman Yang Behormat, pihak SUHAKAM didalam laporan tahunan 2006 ada menyatakan pendirian mereka supaya Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri 1960 dimansuhkan kerana ia bertentangan dengan hak asasi manusia. Pihak SUHAKAM juga telah menyatakan pendirian ini kepada Kementerian secara bertulis.

Untuk makluman Yang Berhormat, Kementerian telah mengkaji secara mendalam akan cadangan dan pandangan oleh pihak SUHAKAM supaya Akta ini dimansuhkan, namun demikian Kementerian berpandangan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri 1960 masih relevan keperluannya dan tidak wajar dimansuhkan. Penggunaan Akta ini didapati adalah berkesan bagi tujuan tindakan pencegahan untuk membendung dan menangani kegiatan atau aktiviti yang boleh mengancam dan memudaratkan keselamatan negara, sekali gus dapat mengekalkan keamanan, keharmonian dan kesejahteraan rakyat secara keseluruhannya.”

The Honorable Minister tends to overlook an important recommendation made by SUHAKAM to amend, if not repeal, the ISA after conducting an in depth study into the atrocities occasioned by the Act and its abuse. The following were some of the suggestions.

a) The police should at all times exercise their utmost care in ensuring that the right to liberty, as enshrined in Article 5 of the Federal Constitution and Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, is not violated without due justification.

b) Individuals should not be detained under the ISA unless genuine reasons exist for believing that such individuals are a threat to national security. Where detentions are necessary, such detentions should only be for as long as is absolutely necessary.

c) Effective investigations should be carried out into allegations of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment of ISA detainees who testified of such treatment during the Inquiry, and all other known cases of such treatment in respect of other ISA detainees.

d) Disciplinary action should be taken in respect of officers who have been found upon investigation, to have treated detainees in a cruel, inhuman and degrading manner.

e) All law enforcement officers should be aware of the fact that as agents of the State, they are obligated to conduct themselves in a manner which evinces absolute respect for the prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Training should be provided for such officials to enable them to be more aware of their obligations.

f) Adequate steps should be taken to ensure that detainees are provided with clean bedding during their detention.

g) All detention cells should be adequately ventilated to ensure the health and well-being of detainees and to enable them to be aware of their surroundings.

h) Adequate funds should be provided to the police to increase the number of cells in larger lock-ups of police stations which are frequently overcrowded.

i) Family members should be informed of the arrest of detainees within 24 hours of the arrest.

j) Detainees should not be required to wait for two weeks before gaining access to their families.

k) Appropriate amendments should be made to Rule 22(6) of the Lock-Up Rules 1958, to protect the right to privacy of the detainee during family visits, as guaranteed under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

l) Detainees should be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest in accordance with Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.

m) Detainees should be allowed access to Counsel during the aforesaid production before a magistrate and supplied with a copy of the grounds of arrest.

It is most unfortunate that these recommendations, which serve only to resurrect the most basic rights of detainees, were not adhere to at all by the Honorable Minister. This leaves us with a real doubt in relation to the governments efforts to streamline our Human Rights standards with that of democratic nations across the globe.

I call upon the Honorable Minister to revisit the reply he has given me, reconsider it and state whether he is prepared to consider supporting a motion to have the ISA repealed or at the very least for now amended in terms as recommended by SUHAKAM as stated above. And if his is an answer in the negative, I would like to know the reasons why.

GOBIND SINGH DEO