I read with interest Deputy Internal Security Minister Noh Omar's statement that Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees are rehabilitated and not tortured. The position taken by the government is, with the greatest respect, not tenable.

A detention under the ISA is more usually a two stage process. In the first stage, the detainee is detained by the police for a period of up to 60 days. It is during this period that the detainee is subjected to vigorous interrogation aimed at extracting from the detainee such information that the authorities find useful.

The methods adopted by interrogating officers have by now become notorious and form much of the backdrop to the continuing campaign by civil society for the abolition of the ISA. A snapshot of these methods, and the nature of the interrogation techniques, can be gleaned from the affidavits filed by the Keadilan 10 in connection with their then applications for release (these are available on the Hakam website as well as the website for the Gerakan Mansuh ISA.

Suffice it to say that then chief justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah in what is considered to have been a groundbreaking judgment came to the conclusion that the police had acted in bad faith.

Mental and emotional stress

During this first stage, it is exceptional for the detainee in question to be allowed to see his or her lawyers. Visits by families are tightly supervised as are visits by Suhakam commissioners.

In the Keadilan 10 series of cases, allegations were made that the detainees were briefed as to how to behave and what to say when they did meet these parties under threat, of extended detention (played off against the promise of early release and the avoidance of a ministerial detention order) and other matters which would have clearly affected the mental state of the detainees concerned.

Furthermore, from the beginning of the 60 day period, detainees are kept in a constant state of disorientation and subjected to a great deal of mental and emotional stress by the various tactics adopted.

These include the by now legendary midnight rap on the door, heralding the arrival of the arresting team, being kept 'blind' either by blindfolds or blacked out spectacles whilst being driven to various locations, verbal abuse, left in unhygienic cells without footwear, long hours of interrogation, inadequate sleep, stop-start unsystematic interrogation times and so on. A fair amount of literature has been published on these matters over the years.

The second stage involves a detention order by the minister concerned with the consequence that the detainee is more usually incarcerated in a detention center located in Kamunting. During this period, conditions are somewhat better and visits by lawyers and families are permitted although again, these visits are supervised with wardens sitting in.

Detainees however are under constant threat of having their detention periods extended in the event they are seen not to be cooperative or compliant.

It is not surprising that Noh Omar felt like he was 'chatting with old friends'. The true feelings of many a detainee is however perhaps best illustrated by the recent hunger strike, not exactly the kind of thing an old friend would do. The comments by the honourable deputy minister further do not address the first period of detention.

Definition of torture

To be tortured, one does not have to be caused physical pain. Fingernails do not have to be pulled out, branding irons do not need to be wielded. The international human rights definition of torture is set out in the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

It is defined in this manner:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

What has been shown to have been a consistent pattern on the part of interrogators as disclosed by available literature, as well as proceedings in court, very clearly fall within the definition of torture.

The reaction by the deputy minister and Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, with great respect, are symptomatic of the larger politics of Malaysia.

They suggest a disinterest in the underlying issues. Attempts to highlight grievances are dismissed as smear campaigns against the good name of the country and so on. One only has to refer to the various reports by Suhakam, which in itself is seen as being less aggressive than it ought to be, and various other NGOs including Suaram and Amnesty International to begin to see that all is not well.

That despite the achievements in other areas, in the field of human rights, be it of the western liberal form the Malaysian government routinely denounces, or of the Islamic or Asian Model, Malaysia does not have a good name.

Convention not ratified

The Malaysian Government has not ratified the Convention Against Torture. Neither has it ratified the International Convention Against Civil and Political Rights which similarly prohibits torture.

The burning question is: Why? There is no plausible basis, these instruments are reflective of universal values, Western and Asian. The inferences are chilling and are suggestive of an understanding by the government that the conduct of its agencies could perhaps fall foul of these instruments.

They are also suggestive of a weighing up of the costs and benefits by the government of not ratifying these instruments, and that the benefits outweigh the costs.

It is time for this government to see that admitting to or recognizing possible deficiencies is a strength as such admissions pave the way for improvement. Blanket denials and sweeping generalisations only go to reinforce impressions of wrongdoing and are not consistent with a transparent and accountable government.

They do worse damage to the good name of the countries than those who, by their courage and conviction and with total disregard to their own interests, strive to bring to light wrongdoings.

MALIK IMTIAZ SARWAR is a lawyer and the deputy president of human rights movement Hakam.