Important safeguards against abuse of power in the Internal Security Act (ISA) "have been gradually eroded over the years", said the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam).

The commission detailed the weakening of accountability of those who hold the power to detain persons, in a 186-page review report that it released today.

The Razak years

In 1971, when Abdul Razak Hussein was the prime minister, Parliament extended the grounds o­n which a person may be detained under sections 8 and 73, to include actions alleged to be "prejudicial to the maintenance of essential services and the economic life of Malaysia".

This added to the original grounds that allowed for detention of any person who "has acted or is about to act or is likely to act" in a manner "prejudicial to the security of Malaysia".

"This extension added to the ambiguity of the exact grounds o­n which a person may be detained without trial under the ISA," the Suhakam report says.

Under Section 8, the home minister can make an order for the person to be further detained for a period of two years. The order can be renewed every two years indefinitely.

Section 73 states that police can arrest and detain a person for up to 60 days. Prior to 1971, this period was o­nly 30 days.

Suhakam's report says the period was extended because of the "insufficiency of 30 days for the files of a detainee to be brought from the contingent-level police to the headquarters and subsequently the home affairs ministry".

Under Dr M

Two more amendments were made to the ISA in the late 1980s under Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's leadership.

In 1988, the ISA was amended to validate detentions under Section 8 even if the detainees are held at in a place that is different from the o­ne directed by the home minister.

This amendment, Suhakam's report says, "increases the possibility of incommunicado detention and consequently, the inherent danger of inhuman or degrading treatment".

Another drastic amendment was in 1989 when judicial review of the grounds of detention under Section 8 was excluded.

As a result, detainees "are not o­nly denied a fair and public trial, they are also denied their minimum right to an effective opportunity to be heard promptly by an independent judiciary, which may order their release if their detention (is found to be) unlawful", says Suhakam.

Elaborating, it says the denial of a fair and public trial has increased the risk of individuals being subjected to arbitrary detention.

Other laws

Suhakam also notes that there are differences between the ISA and security laws in other countries.

It explains that security laws in countries such as United States, United Kingdom and Canada clearly spell out the specific offences related to threats to national security. These offences are covered by existing criminal laws or new o­nes.

Another difference is that security laws in US, UK and Canada provide for much shorter periods of detention for investigation purposes.

"The USA Patriot Act provides for the detention of a foreign national who is suspected of being a threat to national security by the Attorney-General for a maximum period of seven days, after which the AG has to place the person in removal proceedings or charge the person with a criminal offence," Suhakam notes.

"The UK Terrorism Act provides for the detention by the police of a suspected terrorist for a period up to seven days."

The ISA was enacted in 1960 under article 149 of the Constitution which provides the state with special and emergency powers against subversion, organised violence and acts and crimes prejudicial to the public. The law was introduced to fight the communist insurgency at the time.