Comments for The Internal Security Act 1960: A throwback to the era of tyranny at http://www.malaysianbar.org.my , comment 0 to 7 out of 7 comments http://www.malaysianbar.org.my Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:59:26 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/opinions/comments/the_internal_security_act_1960_a_throwback_to_the_era_of_tyranny.html#pc_5707 Dear Hector It would be most helpful if you read the SUHAKAM report carefully again. Your comments to my mind appear to misrepresent the Commission's report. Edmund Bon - Edmund Bon Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:03:34 +0100 http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/opinions/comments/the_internal_security_act_1960_a_throwback_to_the_era_of_tyranny.html#pc_5702 "...to make the move to repeal the ISA politically palatable to the Government..." - I do not think that we can support any such recommendations by SUHAKAM. On the point of Detention Without Trial - there can be no compromise on our part. We are against it....period. We want it repealed. It is wrong to even suggest that we are agreeable to a "better ISA" which provides for a shorter period of detention, etc.. Detention Without Trial is wrong and REPEAL NOW is our call. This is fundamental. This is a matter of principle... SUHAKAM made those recommendations - if we do not want to CONDEMN or OPPOSE that recommendation - then JUST BE SILENT - but do not go out there and say that you SUPPORT those SUHAKAM recommendations. In solidarity, Charles Hector - Charles Hector Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:58:08 +0100 http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/opinions/comments/the_internal_security_act_1960_a_throwback_to_the_era_of_tyranny.html#pc_5695 Dear Hector One needs to be fair, and to read SUHAKAM’s report (2003) carefully. It has I think in good faith taken a very nuanced approach in an attempt to have the Government accept its recommendations. This is however different from saying that SUHAKAM has compromised the human rights position. If one looks at SUHAKAM's recommendations, it clearly recommends a two-pronged approach: (1) The ultimate goal is that the ISA be repealed, and in its place, a new comprehensive security legislation which clearly defines offences relating to national security. Under this legislation, more safeguards will be introduced (e.g. 7-day periods of detention, High Court supervision, rights of detainee similarly accorded by ordinary criminal process etc) although the period of detention pending investigations will be up to a maximum of 29 days. The legislation will also have a sunset clause of 1 year, and Parliament needs to renew the legislation annually should it be required. (2) To enact this new legislation will take time, and in the interim various amendments to the ISA will have to be made (e.g. judicial review to be allowed, 2-year period under section 8 be reduced to 3 months, 60-day period under section 73 be reduced to 14 days etc). Additionally, the ISA will be subject to a sunset clause of 1 year. Given the above which I believe was to make the move to repeal the ISA politically palatable to the Government, I do not see much to commend in amending the motion. Edmund Bon - Edmund Bon Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:45:32 +0100 http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/opinions/comments/the_internal_security_act_1960_a_throwback_to_the_era_of_tyranny.html#pc_5692 Good job Sunil - you really should write more. By the way on the motion, I believe the SUHAKAM does not take the position to repeal the ISA and end DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL. Therefore adopting and/or supporting the SUHAKAM's recommendations is an abdication of the Bar's position for total repeal and to end all Detention Without Trial. Of course, it is good if the government follow the SUHAKAM recommendations which will be a step forward in improving matters and conditions BUT we cannot and should not be seen as supporting these recommendations for our call is clear and simple - REPEAL. (Not reduce the number of days one can be detained, etc...or improve the detention cell condition...) Consider amending your motion... Look forward to reading more stuff from you. In solidarity, Charles Hector *** Why don't the KLBC, State Bar Committees and the Bar Council at least put up a BANNER/ADVERT calling for the release and for the Repeal of the ISA, etc.... (It is so simple....) Charles Hector - Charles Hector Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:45:15 +0100 http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/opinions/comments/the_internal_security_act_1960_a_throwback_to_the_era_of_tyranny.html#pc_5691 The article exemplifies the feelings of some lawyers about the recent arrests of lawyers under ISA. There are provisions in Penal Code which the Prosecution can use to charge Uthaya and co, and ISA is definitely not the appropriate provision. At a time where we are thinking of building a 2nd bridge in Penang; recently send some chap to space for a few days and even had the audacity to criticise USA for detaining alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay without trial, yet we are still arresting people under ISA here. Richard Wee Thiam Seng - Richard Wee Thiam Seng Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:44:16 +0100 http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/opinions/comments/the_internal_security_act_1960_a_throwback_to_the_era_of_tyranny.html#pc_5688 Concise and succinct, I think it captures precisely the sentiments of members. There should be a healthy debate at the AGM on the motion, and as many members should turn up for it. Edmund Bon - Edmund Bon Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:23:32 +0100 http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/opinions/comments/the_internal_security_act_1960_a_throwback_to_the_era_of_tyranny.html#pc_5687 The motion is indeed timely and I congratulate Sunil, Robin Lim and Amer for putting this up. Despite the fact that a motion has been passed some 20 years ago, it does not mean that we (this would include 2 generations of new lawyers)cannot revisit and pass another motion to record the sentiments of the lawyers. As for whether the BC should be taking the lead, I am sure they are. But to me, I cannot see why state bars cannot pass similar resolutions. It would be a tremendous achievement is all the state bars in their respective AGM's pass a similar motion to that of the KL Bar's and this would culminate in the passing of the BC's own motion on this matter. Its also time that we stopped leaving everything nterest or to the BC to act upon (national interest or otherwise). It seems an easier thing to do but if we want to set an example and indeed if we believe that we all have a role to play in ensuring that the rule of law is continuously upheld, then its time to think out of the box once in a while. Many thanks Dipendra A/L Harshad Rai - Dipendra A/L Harshad Rai Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:42:45 +0100