|
Gerakan Mansuh ISA (GMI) or Movement for the Abolishment of ISA is a coalition comprising more than 83 organizations, mainly NGOs (union bodies and student bodies and women’s organizations as well as individuals) and political parties, that support the abolishment of the Internal Security Act. Its president Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh is an activist who’s been a member of GMI since its establishment in 2001. He joined as a committee member and was nominated as chairman in 2005.
Malaysian Digest caught up with him recently to enquire more about GMI’s anti-ISA cause while he was at his Sri Damansara home nursing a knee injury he had picked up from playing football…
Malaysian Digest: (Pointing at Ibrahim’s leg whilst he’s limping) Football...?
Syed Ibrahim: Yeah. I keep telling myself not to play with the younger guys.
MD: I hope it heals fast… So what do you do? And what were you doing before you became part of GMI?
SI: I work in a private firm and, at the same time, I’ve also been active in my NGO which is Pertubuhan Jamaah Islah Malaysia (JIM) since its inception in 1990. Currently I’m holding the post of deputy president. So a lot of my time and activities has been with JIM and the reason why I became involved with GMI is because our first president (of JIM Saari Sungib) was detained under ISA in 1998 during the time Reformasi.
JIM is an Islamic-based welfare organization and we look into youth and women-related programs as well as other activities that would propagate Islam as a religion. We also encourage lots of voluntarism among our members and also the public. I was also involved with Misi Kasih Aceh and we helped provide funds for orphans and welfare programs during the floods in Malaysia.
Apart from JIM, I’m also involved with MAFREL (Malaysians for Free and Fair Elections), an election-watch body.
Where does GMI source its funds from?
We do not have membership fees. What we actually do is when we have programs we ask for certain contributions from the coalition members. We ask for about RM100 per year as a contribution but it’s not mandatory. But sometimes it’s not that easy also to get it from the coalition members.
For us it’s good if we get it (contributions), but if we don’t then we will solicit from the rakyat. So when we have our programs we will solicit for funds for future programs. We also have created funds for the families of detainees. We need funds to travel, carry out activities and various other things.
Generally speaking, Malaysians are quite generous when it comes to contributing for a certain cause. Of course they would need to see proof of how effective is the program and the concerned group and I think we have managed to do that (prove to them) so much so that I can say we don’t have problems with funds.
Do you see yourself as an activist, an intellectual or a Muslim first and foremost?
I’ve really changed. I mean, those days I would see myself as somebody who is very idealistic; Someone who wants to do something we thought would be best for all Malaysians. At that time, my ideals were that Islam is the best religion and we should practise Islam as it is and Islam should be our way of life and all that but I came to know that there are a lot of things that we needed to expose ourselves to. From then I changed from being a very idealistic person to an activist who is really involved in doing work on the ground and understanding different opinions about certain things especially about human rights, social justice and things like that. So now I’m looking into others rather than ourselves.
Does JIM concur with PAS’ cause in making Malaysia an Islamic state?
We have an almost similar mission which is to make Malaysia a nation that gives sovereignty to syariah. We’re not saying that we should be an Islamic state. We look at it more as syariah being a reference for Malaysia, meaning to say syariah is for the best of all, not just for Muslims.
How about as far as hudud is concerned?
It is a question of implementation and execution I think. Hudud is part of syariah so it is something which should be implemented but what we have to look at how it is being implemented. Whether if we do have Islamic influence all over Malaysia such that people would see syariah as something that is beneficial to them and for all, not just Muslims. And they would see the beauty of syariah and how fair it is and how the law could be executed in a universal kind of way.
I don’t think that is really happening now. Many people are saying “Yes, hudud is good” but we have to give more explanation behind the concept and let non-Muslims know what hudud law and other Islamic laws are all about. Once they have the exposure of what it truly is then people would actually accept syariah even if they are not Muslims.
Are you affiliated to any political party?
No, I’m not.
Do you think Pakatan Rakyat will amend or abolish ISA if they are to take over Putrajaya?
I would say it’s a definite yes for many reasons. They would abolish ISA because they have been saying this and they have been making concrete statements in their manifesto by several leaders including Anwar Ibrahim himself, Uztaz Hadi and Lim Kit Siang, and at the same time I think another reason is because many (PKR) members have experienced ISA as many of them were ISA detainees and many of them had family members who were former ISA detainees.
So these people have gone through the whole experience. They know how painful it is and how it has violated lots of rights. Coming from that experience I think they have a very strong commitment to ensure that ISA would be abolished. It has been reaffirmed in their Dasar Pakatan Rakyat (Common Policy Framework).
The reason I asked that question is because of the biasness attested in the past whereby both former premiers, Mahathir and Abdullah, initially were against ISA but never did anything about it once they became prime ministers. In fact, they temselves have used it.
Yes. In the BN government there are people who have been detained under ISA before like the Perak MB Zambry as well as those in its component parties Gerakan and MCA. Why is it that when they are in the government they never speak out against ISA although they themselves have went through that experience as did their opposition counterparts?
I think it’s not just the experience. It’s actually the understanding of the law of ISA itself as well. They have the experience (of being detained under ISA) but they still don’t grasp the true nature of the law of ISA. I don’t think they will ever commit themselves to voice out and say ISA should be abolished.
This true understanding of ISA can be achieved through dialogues and lots of open discussions with ISA detainees of different backgrounds. It’s not just political detainees but also people who have been detained for alleged terrorism, forgery of documents etc so you have to look at those and understand the experiences that they went through. Not just them but also their wives and children.
Once you understand you’ll have that conviction to say that we shouldn’t have this law (ISA) at all. This is what the opposition members went through but the BN members did not go through this so they tend to feel like, “Well, we did something wrong so we were detained under ISA for a few weeks or months but that’s fine. We’re up here now and we’re stronger. The ISA has saved us.”
I think this is a very big issue that needs to be dialogued and GMI feels it’s something that needs to be debated so people will have a better understanding. I know the government won’t like this at all because they know that there’s a lot of dirty laundries involved in ISA so they just decide we shouldn’t have dialogues or debates as “This is the law and that‘s it”.
What are the main issues of your concern with regards to ISA being unjust?
Number one is it’s detention without trial for an indefinite time period. When you are detained you lose the right to a fair trial. You lose the right to have your own lawyer to protect and defend you. You lose the right to be informed of how long your detention will be.
Detention without trial is unjust. It is absolutely against human rights because for you to be detained you will have to be informed of why you are being detained and you need to be tried and you need to be able to defend yourself. If you are found guilty then of course then you can be punished. But in this case you don’t have the means to defend yourself. There is no court of law or judicial review. This is a violation of human rights. It’s a violation of basic necessity for a person to be free.
Number two is the power within ISA. In ISA, under section 73, the police have the power to detain a person for 60 days without having to provide proof (to a crime) or go to court. Within this 60 days, the police can do almost anything under the sun (to you). They can basically do whatever it takes to extract information from the detainee. This is the point in time (of the detention) when Anwar Ibrahim was punched in the eye.
Other classic examples are Malik Husein who was detained in 1998 in relation to Anwar Ibrahim and his case was quoted because his affidavit and testimony was very detailed in specifying how he was kicked, punched and threatened to have a rubber hose forced into his anus. If you read books written by ex ISA detainees they tell you that they were tortured mentally and physically. This is the powers the police are given and they (the police) are not liable to answer to anyone even the courts.
Under section 8 is the powers within the Ministry of Home Affairs to extend a person’s detention for another two years where they will be sent to Kamunting.
So before they are sent to Kamunting where are they usually detained? The police station?
For 60 days they will be incommunicado. Sometimes the families are not informed of the arrest and detention. At this time they could be detained anywhere. Some say they were detained in Bukit Aman, others say somewhere in Jalan Ipoh. Pulapol is also another place that have been mentioned. But they usually wouldn’t know because their eyes are being covered are blindfolded all the while until they reach the lockup.
After 60 days, or even before that, if the police gives a report to the minister and the minister finds it’s satisfactory that the person needs to be detained further for two years he will then sign a letter and then the detainee will be sent to Kamunting. After the two years of detention the person may still be detained for another two years. Then another two years indefinitely. So the person can basically be detained for a hundred years.
My example is extreme but there have been cases where persons were detained for 16 to 17 years like the case of Said Zahari who was a Utusan Malaysia journalist. He’s still alive now and I think he’s one of the longest-serving ISA detainee. I know of a detainee who was detained for 22 years. It was during the sixties and there were some people who were somehow linked to the communists but actually it’s not true.
ISA was initially meant to suppress the communists wasn’t it?
Yeah, that’s right. When the ISA law was enacted, it was basically for the communists and any other subversive activities. They would link socialists and academicians to communists but that weren’t the case.
It was more because of the Cold War between Russia and America and at that time, in the international arena, you have to side one of the blocs so and in order to show our commitment to the blockade of the US and democracy. So any kind of activities that will indicate support for socialist or communist would be considered as voice of dissention that need to be curtailed. These people (the socialists and academicians) were made as scapegoats. Many socialists were detained at that time.
So one is: detention without a trial and two is: the indiscriminate power of ISA. The third is specifically the violation of basic human rights and the Constitution itself. The Constitution speaks about the right for freedom of association, freedom to express oneself, freedom to be innocent until proven guilty - that’s the spirit of the Constitution and democracy. So when we have laws like this (ISA), it’s a contradiction to the spirit of Constitution, democracy and human rights.
We can no longer say that, because it’s a matter of national security, we have to have this preventive law. But is it fair to have this law at the expense of basic human rights and justice for people? I don’t think so. This is the core issue of ISA. We’re not asking for absolute right where people can go out in the streets and bomb Putrajaya - No, but a fair trial is our basic constitutional right and rule of law.
How come the second time Raja Petra was arrested they sent him straight to Kamunting without the initial 60-day remand elsewhere?
This is the beauty of ISA. The law is such that a minister or police can interpret it as they see fit. So if they feel like it, based on the (arrested) person’s background and evidences, and even before they interrogate, they can send the person straight to Kamunting under section 8. But this is quite funny in a way because in order for the minister to find a person satisfactory they actually need to investigate. They need to call in the alleged detainee to determine if the person is a threat to national security. But no. There’s no report. Either that or the report is done interrogation which is weird. It’s more a matter of curbing voice of dissention on the part of Raja Petra. They sent him to Kamunting to keep him quiet.
This is how powerful the ISA law is. There’s no justification being required to tell people what is the threat and what is the definition of national security and also the nature of the threat to national security. There is no definition of national security. This was also brought up by SUHAKAM (Human Rights Commission of Malaysia) when they question about ISA. They ask about if there’s appendices that define ‘threat to national security’ like ‘çarrying a weapon’, for example. So that’s why ISA is so powerful. Because they can detain a person for anything at all like in the case of Raja Petra and Tan Hoon Cheng who was a reporter for Sin Chew Daily. She (the latter) was supposedly detained to protect her from the threat. This was mentioned by Syed Hamid Albar when he was the Minister of Home Affairs which is ludicrous. Ridiculous, you know?
In the case of Raja Petra it’s quite straightforward actually. If you look at ISA, it is meant to be used when a ‘group’ of people threaten the security or peacefulness of the country. It specifically mentions this. But in the case of Raja Petra he’s considered to be one man. How can one man create a threat to a whole country? It’s not logical. They need to have a group.
Secondly, there are other laws that he can be charged against and I think that is what is happening now. The sedition act and immigration etc; these are laws that can already be used but why use ISA? That’s the reason people are saying what he wrote about Rosmah and Najib must be true because if these cases go to court a lot of things will spill out and they wouldn’t want that to happen. So the best way to suppress him is by detaining those who has the most information or are linked to certain people of interest and put him under ISA.
This is the same thing that happened before. For example, a few years ago there was a person who was detained for allegedly being a nuclear arms dealer. We should be aware of this because this case was linked to the son of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Kamaluddin, and his company Scomi. The case came out in the papers saying there was a nuclear component being sent to other countries for them to produce nuclear weapons. In order for this case to be suppressed they detained this person BSA Tahir who was of, I think, Sri Lankan origin, for two years. The case was closed because the police were saying that the culprit has been detained under ISA. But in actuality, nobody knows who was behind this. Was it really BSA Tahir or was it someone else?
Lots of articles were written on how this case was linked to the son of the prime minister at that time. This is a way of suppressing information and real cases and also to cover up for people of high status. There are a lot more other cases involving forgery of documents and passports and things like that. Those who are detained under ISA are just the ikan bilis but the sharks are free to roam. They’re still roaming everywhere.
BSA Tahir is free now right?
He’s been released, I think about two years ago but I think he was told to lay quiet. They probably told him that they’ll provide all the sustenance he needs while he’s detained and to keep quiet and not to attend to any press and don’t meet the GMI and things like that.
We actually stumbled upon his wife a couple of times in Kamunting. Probably she’s also been told not to talk to us or any lawyers and that the more she does that, the longer her husband is going to be inside. This is a subtle way to making sure that you don’t talk. It’s the same method being used in other countries.
So… Raja Petra
Yeah. Why was he released early?
I think that, you need to ask the government. I think even Raja Petra himself is not sure but I think the reason, as he mentioned in his article, was that they felt there was a ground-swelling of support for him. You know, actually the more this kind of people are detained, the more people will get to know about ISA and the more support we would get. So it works for us. But I’m not saying that people should be detained under ISA alright...
I think they learned from this and realized that this was not going to work so they had to release him and Badawi detained him under a different law. I think this should always be the case. They shouldn’t have used ISA in the first place and I don’t think they‘re going to use ISA on him again when he comes back.
What do you think is going to happen to him when he comes back? They can actually nab him now if they really wanted to isn’t it?
Yeah. I mean they are trying to extradite him. I think if he is brought back he will be charged whatever laws that he have to face. Sedition and whatnot.
To be continued...
Related News
|
.gif)
