Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

INTRODUCTION Every country in this world want get peace and avoid anything bad happen unto them.

The security issue is a big issue and has been discusses since long time ago. In fact, it become main issue for any government whose govern some state. People keep asking what is the solution or alternative to make sure their country in peace and good condition. Cause of that factor, security acts were introduced by some countries in this world. For example, UK government used The Anti-Terrorism misdeed and Security proceed 2001 was presented in Parliament on 12 November 2001 to keep peace condition in United Kingdom. For United State of America, they also have same act to practiced. That act is National Defence Authorization Act in December 2011. So, we can see that developed countries like United Stated of America and United Kingdom implement this acts to make sure their nation keep in good condition and try to prevent bad incident happen unto them. In Malaysia, we also have this kind of law were practiced by our government. But this acts were produced since British Colonial era, which is in 1948. During that time, that law try to prevent the spread of Communist ideology were brought by Malayan Communist Party. That Ordinan was change to another name, Internal Security Acts in 1960. There are lot of story about this acts because when someone were suspects by government whose can harm to the nation, they will arrested without permit and cant hire any lawyer to argue in court. That why many people against this kind of law because contradict with Human Right guide line were introduced by United Nation. Then, The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dato Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak proposed to parliament for abolish this act. It like a new hope for all people in Malaysian but the problem is there are new act to replace Internal Security Act. Not one act, but two acts were proposed by Prime Minister of Malaysia.

ISA MALAYSIA

Preventive detention was first presented by the British to then Malaya in 1948, primarily to combat the equipped rebellion of the Malayan Communist Party, following the declaration of a state of crisis. Intended to be provisional, the ordinance was repealed when the emergency completed in 1960. The government directly passed the Internal Security Acts proceed under item 149 of the Malaysian Constitution. Since that, ISA was amended more than 20 times. Minister of Home Affairs have the absolute power to arrest everyone who find guilty without reference any court. In this act, the cop can arrest anyone for 60 days in sequence without any trail for the action that can be seeing threaten to the national security. After 60 days, the custody can be arrested again for period two years if the Minister of Home Affairs and the detention can be without trail. ISA detainees are normally held at the Kamunting Detention Center, near Taiping, Perak. As if this is not enough, under Tun Dr. Mahathir, the forces of the Home Minister under the ISA legislation was made immune to judicial review in 1989, only allowing the court to analyze and reconsider technical matters pertaining to the ISA arrest. Due to the cruel nature of the ISA, several human rights organizations and political parties, including members of the ruling Barisan

Nasional coalition, have strongly criticized the act and called for its repeal. The repeal of the Internal Security Act and introduction of the Security Offences Act in 2012 removes the government right to detain a person without trial, and reduces the maximum detention period from two years to 28 days. However, the repeal did not cover those who had been detained earlier under the law.

INDEFINITE DETENTION IN UK In the direct after the horrific events in the US of 11 September 2001, the UK Government directly announced that it would change existing terrorism legislation. Precisely two months after the attacks in America, The UK Government presented an Order declaring that because of the risk of terrorism it no longer proposed to uphold the right to liberty under the European conference on Human Rights in certain terrorism-related attenuating factors. The Anti-Terrorism misdeed and Security proceed 2001 was presented in Parliament on 12 November 2001 as emergency legislation and hurried through assembly in just over one month. Part 4 of the proceed permitted for a supposed international terrorist to be deported, but if that wasnt likely a foreign nationwide supposed of involvement in terrorism could be indefinitely imprisoned without charge or trial.

For three years, a group of men were detained in high security prisons and mental health organisations under this power without ever understanding the suspicions that kept them there, let alone having been convicted of any offence. They were nominated exceptional security-cleared solicitors that had access to the data held about them, but not to the men themselves. They were permitted their own solicitors, but these solicitors were not allowed to glimpse the material about their purchasers. The Court held that the Government Order declaring that the UK was not compelled by the right to liberty was unlawful, as this could only be made in an crisis to the extent that is strictly necessary. The detail that the regulation only locked up foreign nationals, and not British nationals who might furthermore represent a risk to nationwide security, demonstrated that these discriminatory measure were not strictly necessary. The Court then made a decleration of incompatibility, saying that the legislation was incompatible with the right to liberty under the Human privileges proceed. The Government's response to the judgment was to repeal Part 4 of the 2001 proceed. although,

the Government restored it with the unsafe and unjust command order regime. Liberty has campaigned tirelessly, both in assembly and in the enclosures, against both indefinite detention without charge and the command alignment regime.

INDEFINITE DETENTION IN US In United States, indefinite detention has been used to hold the terror suspect. On December 5, 2008, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would direct on indefinite detention. On November 29, 2011, the United States council turned down a suggested amendment to the nationwide protecting against Authorization proceed for year 2012 (NDAA) that would have banned indefinite detention by the United States government of its own people. Congress and Senate accepted the nationwide National Defence Authorization Act in December 2011 and leader Barack Obama marked it December 31, 2011.The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a historic assault on American liberty. The American municipal Liberties unification stated that President Obama's activity today is a blight on his legacy because he will eternally be renowned as the president who marked indefinite detention without trial into law.

THE ACTS REPLACED INTERNAL SECURITY ACT

Internal Security Act (ISA), is enacted to enable the government to act on the things that threaten and endanger to national security. ISA is a law that empowers the authorities to take action when national security is not under control and will be affected if early action is not taken. According to the first security minister, Ismail Abdul Rahman he stated that, I maintained then and I maintain now the view that the Internal Security Act is essential to the security of this country especially when democracy is interpreted the way it is interpreted to means absolute freedom, even the freedom to subvert the nation. When cornered by the argument that democracy in the Western sense means freedom is an ordered society and an ordered society is one in which the rule of law prevails, they seek refuge in the slogan that we should imitate Western democracy one hundred per cent. I am convinced that the Internal Security Act as practiced in Malaysia is not contrary to the fundamentals of democracy. Abuse of the Act can be prevented by vigilant public opinion via elections, a free Press and above all the Parliament. However, on 15 September 2011, Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had announced the abolition of the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960. Datuk Seri Najib also announced that the new laws will be enacted to replace the ISA. According to Datuk Seri Najib, the new laws is to prevents acts subvertif, organized terrorism and crime to public order and security are always protected. This new law will provide for a period of detention by the police for a substantially shorter than what is available now and any further detention can only be made by order of the court expert terrorism-related law, remain under the jurisdiction of the Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

The new law will replace the ISA would provide for a shorter detention period compared with the detainees. Detention can be made if received orders from the court except terrorism-related laws that still remain under the power of the minister. In addition, the Prime Minister guarantees that an individual will not be withheld just because of political ideology. Power to extend the detention period will shift to the judiciary except the law relating to terrorism. Law Replaced the ISA. 1. Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) was approved by the House of Commons on 17 April 2012, given assent on 18 June 2012 and enacted on 22 June 2012. According to Senior lawyer, Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Aaron SOSMA is an act to provide special measures to maintain the safety of offenses related to public order and security, and for related matters. He argues that SOSMA not violate prisoners rights in law. Security Offences have special powers in arrest and detention. In the Security Offences, a police officer may or without warrant to arrest and detain any person whom he has reason to believe to be involved. The person that arrest will be detained for 24 hours for the purpose of investigation. Police officer may extend the detention for a period not more than 28 days for the purpose of investigation. According to Senior Criminal Lawyer, Datuk N. Sivananthan SOSMA might be effective in certain situations as it allowed the police to detain a suspect for up to 28 days when there a real threat to public order or to the security of the country, provided that it was properly, only in relation to offences against the state and offences relating to terrorism and nothing else. Other that, the police officer arresting a person under subsection (1) must inform as soon as possible the grounds of his arrested. The police officer also should immediately

notify the family member of the person about his arrest and detention and allow him to consult with a legal practitioner of his choice. If the police think that person should not be detained for 28 days, that person will be released at any time, but electronics monitoring devices will be installed on that person to monitoring their movements. Upon receiving a report of the police investigations, the Public Prosecutor may seek a court order that the electronics device worn by an individual involved in a period not exceeding 28 days. The court must explain to the individual in respect of the terms and conditions of application of the device. If the person concerned fails or defaults in complying with the terms and conditions imposed, he has committed an offense punishable by imprisonment not exceeding three years. In additions, the person shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding three years and have to pay damages if the electronics device is damage or destroy. This process was happened at the end of the installation. Next, in section 12, all security offenses can only be tried in the High Court. While, in section 13, when a person is accused of committing security offenses, he not be released on bail but exceptions in certain cases such as if he allowed less than 18 years old, a women or an infirm person. In this situations, electronics devices will be installed if there is an application of the Public Prosecutor.

IS THAT ISA CONTRADICT WITH HUMAN RIGHT?

Internal Security Acts were proposed by British on 1948 for prevented the Malaya Communist Party (PKM) activities in Malaya during that time. Originally, the name for this act is The Emergency Regulation Ordinance 1948. When Malaya get independent from British on 1957 and threat of Communist Party toward Malaya were reduce on 1960, The Malaysian government laid Internal Security Acts in Parliament and it was approved. But time is changing, people started question about the significant of Internal Security Acts toward to public. As we know, according to this acts, if someone suspected by government that can give bad impact to security of nation, that person will be arrested without pun on trial. It means, if someone were arrested under this acts, they have no right to defend their self with any solution including hire any lawyers. People started aware of this thing since after the Malaysian 12th General Election on 2008. For example, According to Malaysian Human Right Commission (SUHAKAM), the government at now day use this acts without thinking about the rational of their action. For example, The government arrest about seven staff from Emigration Department because they were suspect involve with human trafficking syndicate. SUHAKAM urged government to bring them to court because Malaysia already provided acts specific for that kind of crime which is Anti-Trafficking in Persons Acts 2007. Another example the arrested 16 person whose involve with peace demonstration regarding to promote abolish of Internal Security Acts. Among of them were arrested by government are Abolish Movement of ISA activists (GMI) and activist of PAS (Malaysian Islamic Party) and the other opposition party leader. In Article 10 Federal Constitution also contradict with the implementation of ISA where the people can freely make peace demonstration.

Moreover, Internal Security Acts (ISA) also clash with The Universal Declaration of Human Right by United Nation. This declaration have to follow by all counties under United Nation umbrella including Malaysian Government. Internal Security Acts clash with Article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Right where in that article said; Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Not only that, Internal Security Acts (ISA) also clash with Article 20 (1) and (2) of Universal Declaration of Human Right. That article said; (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The government always do arrest anyone whose have different opinion political with them (especially opposition party) by using ISA. For example, The leader of Opposition Party, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, YB Lim Kiat Siang, YB Lim Guan Eng and the others opposition leader. The question is, they are arrested just because they have different opinion with the Malaysian government party. It is so clear that after the decreased of Communist Party activities in Malaysia, the Malaysian Government party focus on opposition activist. From this action, we also can conclude that ISA also contradict with Article 2 of Universal Declaration of Human Right. That article said; Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other

status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

CONCLUSION

It clear that the action were taken by Malaysian Government are contradict with Article 2 of Universal Declaration of Human Right by United Nation. From this angle, many Malaysian people already aware regarding this issue. But, the question is why the Malaysian Government still want use ISA as tool to make sure their survival in Malaysian politic are guarantee for long-term?