I would like to comment on Dr Rais Yatim's recent statement in The Star that the Internal Security Act (ISA) is relevant to maintain security in the country. He was refuting Human Rights Commission of Malaysia vice-chairperson Harun Hashim who questioned the relevancy of the ISA today as the Act was originally aimed at containing communist insurgency. Rais maintains that it is too simplistic to use the communist threat, which no longer exists, to do away with the ISA.

I think that both of them have missed a very fundamental issue. The communist threat is an element but not the argument. Is Suhakam implying that the use of the ISA against the communists was justified? In my opinion the ISA is intrinsically unjust and, therefore, the use of it against any citizen, be he/she the worst criminal or insurgent, can never be justified.

Fundamental justice demands that a person be tried first before sentence is passed. The guarantee of a public trial is the single most important protection against arbitrary arrest, detention and torture by the authorities.

The ISA makes a mockery of our Constitution. Articles 5, 9, 10 and 13 of our Constitution guarantee fundamental liberties relating to the rights to liberty of the person, freedom of movement, speech, assembly and association and the right to property. The ISA nullifies all this because Article 149 provides the Parliament with authority to create "special powers against subversion, organised violence and acts and crimes prejudicial to the public and emergency powers". What the Constitution does is that with the one hand it grants and guarantees freedom and with the other hand takes it away.

Rais (in the Star ) says that if a country did not prioritise questions pertaining to security then "I think there must be something questionable about the system".

Well said! The ISA is the greatest threat to the security of the citizens of the country who make up the nation. The ISA means that we will live in an atmosphere of fear and will not speak our minds and criticise the government or show disapproval of it for fear of arrest and detention without trial where we would not be able to defend ourselves.

No citizen is bound, in conscience, to obey an unjust law. But, for the same reasons above who dares stand up and declare him/herself a conscientious objector?

We are living through this nightmare. If we do not wish it upon our children, then we must delete Article 149 from the Constitution with a proviso that the present or any other future governments be forbidden to make such laws again.