Proposed provisions under the Penal Code to tackle terrorism offences have granted the authorities extensive powers similar to that under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA), an opposition parliamentarian told the Dewan Rakyat today.

"If we study it carefully, the power under the provisions (for terrorist act) are similar to what are provided under the ISA," said Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (PKR-Permatang Pauh) in her debate on the proposed amendments to the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

"Under the ISA, the police have been granted absolute powers that have resulted in thousands of people being detained on suspicious ground for threatening national security. We have many evidences that the ISA has been abused," said the Parti Keadilan Rakyat president.

She described the proposed amendments in relation to the terrorism offences as 'worrying' and called for a review . She argued that at present, the Penal Code already has provisions to deal with terrorism offences.

Under the proposed amendments - recommended by a special parliamentary select committee - a 'terrorist act' is to be redefined as an action done with the 'intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause'.

It also suggested that a 'terrorist act' must have the intention to 'intimidate the public or a section of it' or to 'compel the government to do or refrain from acting'.

However, another clause makes exceptions for acts done with the purpose of 'advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action' not intended to injure or endanger another person's life.

'Have safeguards'

Wan Azizah said the definitions were vague and that to punish a person based on intention alone was 'unreasonable and too much'.

"The wide definition (for a terrorist act) is definitely opening up room for abuse by any quarter, in particular the police Special Branch, in simply taking action at any time," said the opposition MP.

Drawing an example, she said Peace Malaysia - an anti-war NGO coalition endorsed by government leaders - could be charged under the provision because it had organised several huge demonstrations in the country to protest against the foreign occupation in Iraq.

The new anti-terror clauses under the Penal Code aim to punish not only terrorists but also those who provide them services and facilities such as meeting places. Those who harbour or interfere with the arrests of terrorists also come under the ambit of the proposed clauses.

Wan Azizah also pointed out that safeguards should be put in place particularly with regards to the provision that allows the public prosecutor to authorise a police officer to intercept telecommunication conversations and messages believed to be terrorism-related.

"We stress that the power to intercept must be provided for with clear guidelines and methods to ensure there is no infringement of privacy in the name of this section to prevent terrorism offences," she said.

"We are worried that our phone conversations or Internet surfing or letters will be recorded or read by certain quarters easily in the future," Wan Azizah said, adding that the provision has also granted the prosecutor too much power.

Privacy concern

Her concerns were similar to Razali Ismail's (BN-Kuala Terengganu) who said in his debate the proposed provision for the interception of communications had resulted in confusion on the rights to liberty and privacy as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

"What are the limits to this provision?" he asked. The backbencher also opined that the definition for terrorism offences was too wide.

The select committee, in recommending the provisions, had concluded that there was no necessity to amend its clause over the interception of communications and described the provisions as 'suitable and consistent with current law and that 'such provisions are needed for public interest'.

The committee was also of the view that the power of the public prosecutor under the provision was 'suitable' as immediate action has to be taken by him to authorise a police officer to intercept certain communications.

The debate continues tomorrow.