On Tuesday, we read that the ISA would be reviewed. That's according to new Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein who, incidentally, was quick to add that the ISA was only one of forty statutes that his ministry would be looking at.

He further added that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak did not give any deadline as to when the review should be made.

Ooh, but surely the ISA must take priority. The simple reason is that the Act has been abused for too long. Just ask Suhakam chairman, Abu Talib Othman, not to mention the more than 10,000 people arrested under the Act since it came into effect.

It is interesting also to note that the minister, despite not seeing the urgency of setting up an independent committee to review the Act, would still like to ‘engage' the people before coming out with a decision.

Let it be clear. The minister will have to ‘consult' the people because consultation is an important component in law review and reform. A whole variety of reasons have been given as to why a body or authority undertaking review or reform of the law should put issues and ideas out to consultation.

Sir Peter North, a former Law Commissioner of England, has eloquently expressed several of the reasons (‘Problems of Law Reform' [2002] NZ Law Review 393). Firstly, it is simply in order to have factual evidence provided as to how the particular area of law under examination operates in practice.

Secondly, consultation can provide the law reform body with detailed technical advice on, and criticism of, any reforms that are contemplated. Criticisms may come both from practitioners and from those affected by (and have suffered under) the area of law under review.

Thirdly, it is to give a rather more broadly-based section of the community the opportunity to ‘feel involved' in the whole law reform process, this being regarded as part of their democratic rights.

A further reason is that consultation provides a means of determining the weight of public opinion on the law under review. A great English judge, Lord Wilberforce, once said, ‘Law reform is too important to be left to the lawyers.' And the most appropriate way of involving non-lawyers is to consult them.

Of course, consultation has its issues like in what ways should the consultation be undertaken. Having preliminary papers, consultation papers or the like or draft proposals in all their forms may not be the most effective way of getting the range of views needed.

Another issue is when the person or body consulted has a very single-minded view of the problems with the law under review and of the reforms that it should take.

But consultation is simply too important to be ignored in law reform. According to Sir Peter North, it would be arrogant of a law reform body to conclude that which was acceptable to it must be acceptable to the people without consultation with the latter.

By the way, last Wednesday we read that the ISA would be reviewed ‘soon'. This was announced by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, who added that he had some ideas on the review.

But only last week we read of the prime minister telling a group of journalists from Indonesia that the ISA was undergoing review.

Now, which is which? Undergoing review or will be reviewed (with no dateline) or will be reviewed soon? Oh yes, how soon?