The Internal Security Act – The Law of the Jungle

by Raja Petra

To understand Malaysia’s Internal Security Act (ISA), one must first of all comprehend Malaysia’s history - and the history of the ISA goes back to the time of the Second World War.

Malaysia, then called Malaya, just like the other countries around this region - save for Thailand - fell to the Japanese during WWII. But the British were not about to give in that easily. They parachuted British Army officers into the jungles of Malaya to organise a resistance movement and with that saw the birth of the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA). The British officers not only trained the MPAJA but also supplied it with arms and ammunition but they never really managed to kick the Japanese out.

After the Japanese surrendered, the British disbanded the MPAJA and tried to repossess all the weapons. The slimy buggers, however, never surrendered everything. They declared they had lost most of the weapons and buried them in the jungles to be used at a later date.

Eventually, the British colonial government returned to Malaya’s shores but the MPAJA had by then re-organised itself into another army, a Communist fighting force. In fact, many within the ranks of the original MPAJA were actually Communists who aspired for an independent Malaya. Indonesia had shown that independence was possible when it declared its independence as soon as the Japanese left making it impossible for the Dutch colonial masters to return.

You can say the British trained and equipped the Communist army into what it was. But the British were not about to go home and instead banned the Malayan Communist Party so the Communists retaliated by declaring war on the British. And that was the beginning of the Malayan Emergency.

The Emergency was a trying time for Malaya. Many Malayans as well as British lost their lives, not to mention property razed to the ground. Even police stations were not spared.

In 1957, Malaya finally gained its independence from Britain while the war with the Communist Terrorists was still raging. The first Parliamentary Election was held in 1959 and, in 1960, Parliament decided to enact a law to combat the Communist Terrorists.

The Deputy Prime Minister then, the late Tun Abdul Razak, tabled the proposed new law, the Internal Security Act, which was primarily aimed at overcoming the ongoing and, from the looks of it, never-ending problem with the Communist Terrorists.

The Member of Parliament for Ipoh, Seenivasagam, stood up to question Tun Razak on the purpose of this new law. Tun Razak replied that the Communist Terrorists operating along the Malaysian-Thai border was a serious problem that needed to be overcome. There were an estimated 580 Communist Terrorists operating in Malaya which included small groups in the States of Pahang and Terengganu.

Tun Razak assured Parliament that the ISA would only be used against these Communist Terrorists. It was a very specific law with a very specific objective in mind.

Under Article 149 of the Constitution, Parliament, in dire situations, can enact laws to counter it. The Communist insurgency was certainly within this category and the ISA was enacted under Article 149 of the Constitution.

Article 149 is very specific. It is to counter subversion. And the definition of subversion is if there is a religious rebellion, racial disharmony, or Communist insurgency. And Article 149 can be invoked in the event that certain "action has been taken by a substantial body of persons".

Today, there are no more Communists in Malaysia, and certainly no Communist Terrorists in our jungles. And Malaysia is far from being subverted from any "substantial body of persons". But the ISA continues to be used against Malaysians.

The arrest of ten Keadilan leaders and Reformasi activists in April 2001 was on grounds that they are members of the party who "plotted to topple the government through the general elections and street demonstrations". That was the official statement released by the police the day the arrests were made.

The ten profusely deny this allegation. They were also alleged to be planning to bring in guns, bombs and grenade launchers. They deny this too and up to now no evidence have been offered to support this allegation against them.

The government also says that the ten were arrested because they planned to commit an act of subversion. Although they have not committed any such act yet, there is a suspicion they may do so in future. The ISA was invoked on mere suspicion that there is a probability such a plan could exist and they were arrested to establish whether it did actually exist or not.

The detainees are challenging their detention and seeking to get their detention declared illegal. They contend that they were never informed of the reason of their arrest and were denied access to legal counsel. And they are certainly not a "substantial body of persons".

The government says the detainees were informed of the reason of their arrest – that they are a threat to nation security – but the government is not obligated to tell them what act they performed which makes them a threat. ISA detainees need only be given a vague reason for their arrest. They need not be given any details or shown any proof argues the government.

The ISA detainees are arrested based on suspicion, based on the probability they may commit a subversive act in future, and so that they can be interrogated. It is up to the ISA detainees then to prove they are innocent. But the ISA detainees will not be told of what crime they have committed so they will not be able to defend themselves during the interrogation but can only do so after they have been sent to Kamunting. And they are sent to Kamunting after the government is convinced they are guilty, which will be established during the interrogation.

Sounds confusing? This is known as "Catch 22". You cannot prove your innocence since you do not know your crime and since you cannot prove your innocence you are sent to Kamunting.

The government also says that ISA detainees lose their right to legal counsel though the Constitution says that not only must those arrested be told the reason of their arrest, but they must be given access to legal counsel as well.

The ISA is a special law argues the government and agrees that the ISA contradicts the Constitution with regards to the right to legal counsel. The ISA is above the Constitution though it was enacted under the Constitution. (Even the Federal Court judges could not, as they said, reconcile this contradiction).

In short, the ISA is a law of the jungle where basic Constitutional rights does not exist – most apt considering, in the first place, it was enacted to fight those Communists in the jungle.