The government was today urged to immediately repeal the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (Popo).

Describing it as 'ten times worse' than the Internal Security Act (ISA), 33 local civil society groups wanted the police stop arresting individuals under Popo.

The security law, which is often invoked against criminals, allowed for detention without trial.

"The Popo is equally as draconian as the ISA. It is undoubtedly unconstitutional and blatantly circumvents the rule of law," said spokesperson S Arutchelvam at a press conference in Kuala Lumpur.

No outcry

Arutchelvam, who is human rights group Suaram coordinator, said despite more individuals being held under Popo than ISA, there are not many voices condemning it.

"Popo does not evoke as much anger and hatred as the ISA - though it is just as obnoxious - simply because its target group is different from the dissidents, critics and politicians who are detained under the ISA," he added.

According to him, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) reported that 1,007 people were being held under Popo at the maximum security Simpang Renggam prison in Johor.

There are also others held under the act in prisons elsewhere in the country.

"Popo is applied mainly against alleged gangsters, violent criminals, drug pushers and peddlers and that is why there is hardly any outcry," said Arutchelvam.

Meanwhile, Malaysian Bar Council secretary K Ragunath, who was also present, said a visit to Simpang Renggam last year revealed that some inmates were held for minor offences such as quarrels and stealing livestock.

Previously Suhakam and the Royal Police Commission had also called for the abolishment of the act.

Sweeping powers

Drafted to counter the 1969 racial riots, Popo arms the police with sweeping powers to detain suspects for a period of 60 days without a remand order.

Following this, the internal security minister can make an order authorising a two-year detention without trial, which can be extended indefinitely.

Alternately, the minister could serve an order of restriction on the suspects imposing several conditions under police supervision.

Under the order, the suspects would be required to reside within the limits of an area ranging from a village to a state anywhere in the country, to periodically report to the police, to remain indoors between specific hours and abide by other restriction on their movements.

These orders can be renewed indefinitely.