TheAntDaily- KUALA LUMPUR: The new Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota) which was tabled in Parliament on March 30 might not just be eerily similar to the dreaded Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) that was repealed, but also seems to amount to Malaysia reneging on its international obligations.
As a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for two years from 2015 to 2016, Malaysia now has voting rights within the UNSC.
Wouldn’t that then make international obligations the UNSC imposes on fellow member nations of the world be even more binding on Malaysia now by virtue of its position??
Especially since Resolution 2178 (2014) was adopted unanimously by the UNSC on Sept 24, 2014 where the Council condemned violent extremism and, among others, reads: “Reaffirming that Member States must ensure that any measures taken to counter terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, international refugee law, and international humanitarian law, underscoring that respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are complementary and mutually reinforcing with effective counter-terrorism measures and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort and notes the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively prevent and combat terrorism, and noting that failure to comply with these and other international obligations, including under the Charter of the United Nations, is one of the factors contributing to increased radicalization and fosters a sense of impunity.”
This is the question raised by newly elected Bar Council president Steven Thiru when he spoke to Theantdaily.
“Let’s not forget Malaysia is in the Security Council and there is a Security Council Resolution 2178 of 2014, where the threat of terrorism is mentioned and countries resolved that they will not breach the rule of law obligations in combating that threat.
“Malaysia now is in the invidious position of going against a resolution which I’m told they spoke in favour of before they got elected into the Security Council,” said Steven.
The question is whether Malaysia supported the resolution when it was passed in September before Malaysia won the seat on the Security Council?
Even if she didn’t, isn’t Malaysia bound now by virtue of being part of the UNSC?
United States president Barack Obama had pointed out that the resolution was legally binding and described many of its provisions, notably its clarity on respecting human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, as “not optional”.
On the eve of Malaysia Day in 2011, Prime Minister Najib Razak seemed to signal the era of a new beginning when he announced that the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) would be repealed.
By enacting a new law with a different name but which seems to have similar provisions to the ISA be akin to the saying “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”?
“I have not read the Act yet but going by what the newspapers say, what’s been reported, it appears that there will be no judicial review of detention orders, except for procedure.
“Procedure is usually set by the body concerned, the board, and therefore there’s almost no room for challenge there. Now if you are going to launch into substantive challenge, that will now be prevented. Now, that goes back to the ISA,” said Steven.
He questioned why the government did not seem to have faith in the judicial system.
“This is detention without trial. They want to keep it outside of the scrutiny of the courts and we wonder why. Doesn’t the government have faith in our courts to deal with these matters? They should. We do.
“Why take away the judicial powers of the courts? That can be open to abuse and we saw repeated cases of abuse in the ISA regime where everybody forgets the ISA was passed to deal with the communist insurgency. It was not meant to be used for anything else. Operation Lalang in 1987 was used against dissenting voices, including the opposition. We fear that will be the same route this Pota will take,” said Steven.
In fact, pointed out Steven, it was Najib’s father, Abdul Razak, who was then the deputy prime minister, who had promised in 1960 that the ISA would only be used against the communists which didn’t happen in reality.
“That is why we have argued so strongly against it. You don’t need this Act because you already have sufficient laws in the Penal Code to deal with terrorism and you have since 2012, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012.
“Detention without trial will not solve the problem that you have in mind because you will not be able to deal with all the offenders you’re looking at. You may catch one and throw him into jail for detention but you will scatter the rest and you will scatter the network. You will harden positions among the so-called offenders that you have in mind,” said Steven.
Under Pota, suspected terrorists will reportedly be detained without trial with no judicial review allowed on such decisions made by a Prevention of Terrorism Board, unless it concerns procedural requirements of the detention.
The proposed law will also allow for suspects to be first detained a maximum of 60 days (including the initial remand period), before being brought to the board, which can then order further detention of up to two years, which can be renewed if the board decides that there are reasonable grounds.
The board can also direct a person to be set free if it deems necessary.
The bill does however apparently state that no one can be arrested and detained “solely” for their political beliefs or political activities.
With the ISA only meant for communists but yet subsequently used against others, Steven’s fears are justified.
And why have a judicial system in place if you have no faith in its ability?
What is the point of repealing the ISA then? Renaming it would have been much simpler.
– See more at: http://www.theantdaily.com/Main/More-questions-on-Pota-from-new-Bar-Council-chief#sthash.9injRl7V.dpuf