Detention without trial; a person can be detained for months and even years without going through the due process of the law. This term is beginning to be a norm not only in Malaysia but even in the world today. Human rights advocates clearly states that a person is entitled to a fair trial and right to be heard. Things like that no doubt can happen in countries controlled by autocratic regimes, but in the free world?. The next question that comes to mind will be, “How is then such action possible being practiced in countries that promote democracy?” Let’s do a thorough analysis on how such a concept can originate in the first place.
In Malaysia, detention without trial is enforced by the Internal Security Act 1960. Its primary objective is to suppress organized violence against persons and property in Malaysia. This legislation was originated from the British during the colonial era. At that time, it was solely used to counter the armed insurgency of the communists in Malaya. Touching on that point, the Americans used a similar tactic to counter the terrorists under detention at their naval base in Guantanamo Bay. There is a similarity here if one is able to pick up the insinuation. The legislation is used by a government on foreign nationals bend on destruction and mayhem towards their interests. If that is the case, can we say that the legislation is some sort of colonial-master tool to suppress dissent? For one, we don’t see them implementing such legislation on their own nationals. The conscience of America is beginning to question the legitimacy of detaining so-called terrorists without trial and to some extent, some of these “terrorists” are actually proven to be innocent people. Recently the Americans did enact the USA Patriot Act, kind of similar to the ISA. However, its implementation is widely criticized and is not easily enforceable to the whims of the government. How is this legislation enforced in Malaysia then? There are many reservations brought forward by Malaysians on ISA. It is undeniable good in way for it maintains peace and order. However, the main question one should ask is, at what cost?
The government of Malaysia has been using ISA against countless people. From triad members to cult members and not forgetting the source of recent outburst of discontentment, political adversaries. It is within logical sense to detain triad members and cult members for these people are a threat to national security and to the general public as a whole but politicians? It is difficult for anyone to see how a politician can be equated to an armed terrorist. The only common excuse that the government dishes out is, the politician is stroking racial sentiments and this could generate into all out racial clashes. It is definitely a nightmare if these clashes do happen in multiracial Malaysia but could this really happen? It did happen once in 1969 so there is always a possibility this might reoccur. The only argument is why this particular politician can’t be charged in court for seditious remarks rather than stripping off all his individual rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution and is treated like an outcast. Are our police force and public prosecutors that incompetent that they are unable to bring a simple case against the politician in the court of law? Furthermore, if the ISA is not in existence, couldn’t all the triad members and cult members be prosecuted as well? Every time the ISA is invoked, at that very moment the judiciary system in Malaysia will lose a credibility point. In the end, what is the point of having courts of law if the government can bypass these courts at its whim. The Malaysians’ perception is that the government can detain a citizen with impunity if the citizen is deemed to be a threat to national unity without any chance for him to defend himself in the courts of law. This is beginning to look more like living in a feudal state rather than a democratic state.
The ISA has also brew suspicion that the government is using the legislation to silence political dissent. This is certainly not without credence since most of the ISA detainees are basically politicians from the opposition camps. It is definitely unsettling that all criticisms hurl towards the government can be construed as dissent even for the constructive ones. As power corrupts, the government could run into the risk of abusing the ISA. It does more good than harm then if such law is repelled and inadvertently the credibility of the government will then be restored as a just entity protecting the rights of every citizen.
As Habeas Corpus, one of the oldest liberties clearly states “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”
In Malaysia, detention without trial is enforced by the Internal Security Act 1960. Its primary objective is to suppress organized violence against persons and property in Malaysia. This legislation was originated from the British during the colonial era. At that time, it was solely used to counter the armed insurgency of the communists in Malaya. Touching on that point, the Americans used a similar tactic to counter the terrorists under detention at their naval base in Guantanamo Bay. There is a similarity here if one is able to pick up the insinuation. The legislation is used by a government on foreign nationals bend on destruction and mayhem towards their interests. If that is the case, can we say that the legislation is some sort of colonial-master tool to suppress dissent? For one, we don’t see them implementing such legislation on their own nationals. The conscience of America is beginning to question the legitimacy of detaining so-called terrorists without trial and to some extent, some of these “terrorists” are actually proven to be innocent people. Recently the Americans did enact the USA Patriot Act, kind of similar to the ISA. However, its implementation is widely criticized and is not easily enforceable to the whims of the government. How is this legislation enforced in Malaysia then? There are many reservations brought forward by Malaysians on ISA. It is undeniable good in way for it maintains peace and order. However, the main question one should ask is, at what cost?
The government of Malaysia has been using ISA against countless people. From triad members to cult members and not forgetting the source of recent outburst of discontentment, political adversaries. It is within logical sense to detain triad members and cult members for these people are a threat to national security and to the general public as a whole but politicians? It is difficult for anyone to see how a politician can be equated to an armed terrorist. The only common excuse that the government dishes out is, the politician is stroking racial sentiments and this could generate into all out racial clashes. It is definitely a nightmare if these clashes do happen in multiracial Malaysia but could this really happen? It did happen once in 1969 so there is always a possibility this might reoccur. The only argument is why this particular politician can’t be charged in court for seditious remarks rather than stripping off all his individual rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution and is treated like an outcast. Are our police force and public prosecutors that incompetent that they are unable to bring a simple case against the politician in the court of law? Furthermore, if the ISA is not in existence, couldn’t all the triad members and cult members be prosecuted as well? Every time the ISA is invoked, at that very moment the judiciary system in Malaysia will lose a credibility point. In the end, what is the point of having courts of law if the government can bypass these courts at its whim. The Malaysians’ perception is that the government can detain a citizen with impunity if the citizen is deemed to be a threat to national unity without any chance for him to defend himself in the courts of law. This is beginning to look more like living in a feudal state rather than a democratic state.
The ISA has also brew suspicion that the government is using the legislation to silence political dissent. This is certainly not without credence since most of the ISA detainees are basically politicians from the opposition camps. It is definitely unsettling that all criticisms hurl towards the government can be construed as dissent even for the constructive ones. As power corrupts, the government could run into the risk of abusing the ISA. It does more good than harm then if such law is repelled and inadvertently the credibility of the government will then be restored as a just entity protecting the rights of every citizen.
As Habeas Corpus, one of the oldest liberties clearly states “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”
