The Internal Security Act explained

 Abolished 14 years ago, the law has received renewed attention after a top police officer called for its revival to combat extremism.

Politicians and rights activists have rejected calls to revive the Internal Security Act, pointing to the ‘flawed assumption that expanding state powers will effectively reduce threats to the state’. (EPA Images pic)

PETALING JAYA:

The Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960, a security law abolished 14 years ago, has received renewed attention after a top police officer mooted its revival.

Deputy inspector-general of police Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay recently called for the law’s revival, while deputy prime minister Fadillah Yusof said Malaysia needed stronger laws than the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) to address extremist ideologies and sensitive issues.

At a recent event in Sarawak, Ayob Khan said the ISA was the most effective law for addressing threats to national security, deviant teachings, and sensitive issues involving race, religion and royalty (3Rs).

At the same event, Fadillah said Sosma was not as robust as the ISA, and suggested that Malaysia needed to strengthen its laws in view of challenges posed by extremist ideologies and sensitive issues.

What is the ISA? Why was it first enacted and then repealed? FMT takes a look at the controversial legislation.

ISA’s history and abuse

The ISA was introduced in 1960 during the Emergency as Malaya battled a communist insurgency. The law provided for detention without trial for up to two years.

During the second reading of the ISA bill in Parliament on June 21, 1960, then deputy prime minister Abdul Razak Hussein said the law had two aims: to counter subversion throughout the country, and enable the necessary measures to be taken in the border areas to counter terrorism.

Suspected members, sympathisers and leaders of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) were detained without trial when the law came into force.

Although the law was intended to quell communist activities in Malaya, which effectively ended when the CPM disbanded in 1989, successive governments were widely accused of abusing the legislation to suppress dissent.

Many outspoken government critics were detained under the ISA during Operasi Lalang. Launched on Oct 27, 1987, while Dr Mahathir Mohamad was the prime minister, the massive crackdown saw 119 civil society activists, intellectuals and opposition politicians detained without trial.

Among them were the late P Patto, the late Karpal Singh, the late former Dong Jiao Zong chairman Lim Fong Seng, the late women’s rights activist Theresa Lim, Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng, academic-activist Chandra Muzaffar, former Petaling Jaya MP Kua Kia Soong, former Pasir Mas MP Ibrahim Ali, and Amanah president Mohamad Sabu.

They were detained at Kamunting prison in Taiping, with some held for up to two years.

Many have publicly spoken about their ordeal and have called on Mahathir to apologise for his role in permitting the crackdown. However, Mahathir has refused to take any blame, saying Ops Lalang was initiated by the police.

The law was used again in 2007 against five key Hindraf leaders, including lawyer-activist P Uthayakumar, DAP’s Klang MP V Ganabatirau, and former Kota Shah Alam assemblyman M Manoharan.

They were detained for two years until their release in March 2009, after Najib Razak became prime minister.

The abuse of the security law triggered massive backlash, with civil society groups launching the “Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA” (Abolish ISA Movement) in 2008.

After years of pressure, Najib’s administration repealed the ISA in 2012 and replaced it with Sosma, which retained provisions criticised by rights groups as draconian, including 28 days of detention without trial.

Najib faced pressure to revive the ISA from certain quarters. He responded in 2014 by saying that his administration would not do so as it reflected the wishes of the majority of Malaysians.

“Do they want a situation where anyone who expresses an opinion is arrested under the ISA? Do we want that? Surely, the majority of Malaysians do not want it. They want us to be a society that has the latitude to express opinions, even if they differ,” he said in a Bernama interview at the time.

Renewed discourse and backlash

With Malaysia facing growing concerns over harmful discourse touching on 3R issues and deviant movements, some have argued that the ISA is the appropriate law to address such threats.

However, this idea has once again been rejected by politicians and rights activists, with human rights organisation Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) saying calls to revive the ISA are typically based on the “flawed assumption that expanding state powers will effectively reduce threats to the state”.

Azura Nasron.

Suaram executive director Azura Nasron said no law, regardless of how broad or severe, could eliminate radicalisation or extremism on its own.

“Malaysia must move beyond the recurring cycle of responding to every security challenge with calls for broader detention powers,” she told FMT.

Former Klang MP Charles Santiago also said calls by police and government leaders to revive the ISA suggested that the country’s intelligence apparatus had failed to combat extremism.

Charles Santiago.

Santiago argued that Malaysia did not need new laws to address extremism and other national security threats when existing legislation had already failed to eradicate them.

“If you have no faith in Sosma and want to bring back the ISA, that means your intelligence systems have failed. If they cannot inform the government about what is happening, then they have failed in their responsibility.

“By introducing new laws, you are admitting that you want to use laws to control people. That is the message you are sending,” he told FMT. - FMT