FAC News - Thursday, June 20, 2002 9:51 AM

SUHAKAM INQUIRY ON THE ISA: Suhakam inquiry ends 2nd day

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia’s (Suhakam) public inquiry, originally scheduled for three days, ended on the second day yesterday after all the “nominated” Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees in Kamunting had testified.

The second day was fierier compared to the first day which gave the impression that the detainees were not properly briefed and were not aware what the inquiry was all about. It seemed like the detainees who testified on the first day thought they were supposed to “say nice things” so as not to jeopardize their chances of an early release.

Most of the detainees on the first day had only a couple of months left before their two-year term was up and they did not want to say anything adverse that may result in their detention being extended another two years. The other detainees admitted that those who testified on the first day “did not reveal the whole truth” for fear that they would be punished for doing so.

According to Suhakam, there are currently 113 ISA detainees altogether in Kamunting, so it is impossible to call upon all of them to testify. If not, the inquiry would go on for months, as there was no set time limit for each of them to talk and they could talk for as long as they like. Therefore, Suhakam decided that only two from each group or dormitory would be called to testify and it was up to the detainees themselves to choose whom they would like as their representative.

Some groups, such as the so-called KMM detainees, had requested for more representatives, so more from that group were called. Suhakam said that if more representatives from each group had been requested, it would have been considered if time permitted.

The two from each group was only a suggestion and not a hard and fast rule. If, in the end, all wanted to testify, then Suhakam would consider it as long as the inquiry can be kept within the three-day schedule.

The detainees, however, said that this information had not been relayed to them. They did not know it was up to them to choose whom they would like as their representatives or that there was no restriction on the numbers, and the detainees “nominated” to testify had been handpicked by the authorities.

Suhakam set the record straight and insisted that it had been their explicit instructions that the detainees were free to choose their own representatives. The authorities were not supposed to decide who should be the ones to testify but it was entirely up to the detainees themselves. If this was not done, then it was contrary to Suhakam’s instructions.

Suhakam also explained that, while the public inquiry had ended, this did not mean that the inquiry proper had. Suhakam would have to evaluate all the testimonies and information gathered and plan its next move.

There is a possibility that the police and prison personnel might also be called to testify later to reply to some of the allegations and issues raised by the detainees. Suhakam might even meet the Ministry of Home Affairs to discuss the grouses, requests and suggestions of the detainees.

The next inquiry could either be a closed inquiry or might even be a continuation of the public inquiry. This decision, however, can only be made once all the information has been properly assessed.

With regards to Suhakam’s stand on the ISA itself, Suhakam reiterated its earlier stand that arrest and detention without trial goes against the very premise of human rights so Suhakam’s stand remains unchanged in that the ISA should, over the long term, be abolished.