Human rights groups today demanded that the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) clarify its stand on the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA) following claims that it was not against preventive detention.

Suhakam chairperson Abu Talib Othman had said on Thursday that the body was not against preventive detention laws , but would however insist that those detained under such laws be allowed to present their cases in court.

Apart from the ISA, the Emergency Ordinance also empowers the authorities to hold suspects without trial.

Human rights organisation Hakam said Abu Talib's statement was 'contradictory' as there could be no preventive detention without such detention being grounded on concrete evidence which can stand up in court - and that is not the case with the ISA.

Hakam secretary-general Elizabeth Wong said there were also laws that stipulated even heavier punishments than those under the ISA, but the state did not resort to them as it was harder to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt under such laws.

"We don't see why some things should be kept out of court. Let there be transparency in our judicial system. The evidence must be able to stand the rigours of a (judicial) interrogation and the authorities must be able to prove their accusations beyond reasonable doubt," she said when contacted.

National security

Wong also dismissed the argument of those defending the ISA that some evidence could not be presented in open court for fear that it would prejudicial to national security.

She contended that 'sensitive' evidence could be brought to open court by the Attorney-General's Chambers without the need to compromise national security.

"We are led to believe that there are all kinds of problems with certain evidence that prevents them from being used in the trial. But there have been Special Branch officers testifying in open court in criminal cases (before), and they've been able to bring charges.

"This is just an excuse to justify the law (ISA) itself, and arbitrary arrest and detention (in general," she said.

Wong also criticised the statement by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad, who said the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 in Washington vindicated the use of such aws as the ISA.

"We shouldn't be looking at what's happening abroad for our purposes. It's justice, the rule of law, and the due process of law that would secure the future of our nation," said Wong.

Excessive periods

Echoing Wong's statements was rights body Suaram coordinator, Eric Paulsen, who said the home minister was not the arbitrator of whether evidence against a suspect could or could not be put through the judicial process.

"That should be decided by the courts, not the executive branch of the government," he said.

"The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is one of the building blocks of a democratic state. The judiciary should stand in between the individual and the state," he added.

Paulsen said he suspects that what the authorities are afraid of is detrimental evidence against themselves and that "... their style of working, of arrest, and of the gathering of evidence are (themselves) suspect".

Although Suaram recognises the government's duty to combat terrorism to protect public security, it should not be to the extent of contravening basic international human rights and legal standards, said Paulsen.

"Detention periods should definitely not be 60 days to two years. Such detention periods (under the ISA) are excessive."