I refer to the article, '4 ministers to study problems' (New Straits Times, Jan 26). Judging by the interest shown by the four, perhaps at long last we will have a solution to the problems associated with the Simpang Renggam detention centre.

It houses more than 4,000 inmates, when it has the capacity for only half that number. Severe overcrowding and a lack of facilities have caused detainees to suffer serious health problems and subjected them to degrading and inhumane treatment.

The death of S Hendry, an 18-year-old inmate at the centre last year, was not an isolated incident. There may be many more who are suffering under detention, and the outside world remains oblivious of their fate.

The NST article highlighted the deplorable conditions and overcrowding at Simpang Renggam and it would be no surprise if detainees at other detention centres such as Kamunting or Semenyih share the same fate.

These problems may be addressed with quick fixes by building an extension or a new centre to accommodate the numbers, retraining the personnel and upgrading facilities.

But more importantly, we must understand that these problems are merely consequences of a far more pressing issue - the relevance of legislation that permits arbitrary indefinite detention without trial.

Detainees at Simpang Renggam and other centres are held incommunicado, denied their legal rights and are arbitrarily detained without trial indefinitely in derogation of Article 8 of the Federal Constitution - the right to equal treatment before the law and entitlement to equal protection of the law.

The draconian statutes justifying derogation from constitutional rights are the Emergency (Public Order & Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (EO), the infamous Internal Security Act 1960, Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures) 1985 (DDA) and Restricted Residence Act 1933.

At the time of their inception, these were needed in the interest of national security and to quell public unrest. Then, Malaysia was declared to be in a state of national emergency and in that context, the expansive powers to restrict one's activities, movement, imposition of curfews, restrictive residence, and preventive detention were perhaps justifiable due to the communist threat and racial riots of May 13, 1969.

Redundant laws

As citizens of a progressive democracy, we must now question the continued need for such draconian legislation. A progressive democracy that strictly subscribes to the Rule of Law and the constitution would render such laws irrelevant.

With the Peace Accord signed with the Communist Party of Malaya in 1989 - thereby eliminating the communist threat - as well as our celebration of 50 years of independence and Visit Malaysia 2007 campaign in full steam, it is evident that we are no longer in a state of national emergency (although the declaration as not been lifted).

Laws and regulations that confer expansive powers which violate our constitutional right to fair trial, which permit indefinite detention without trial, impede our freedom of movement, and reverse the presumption of guilt are redundant in Malaysia today.

In defence of the retention of these laws, the government asserts that their application is confined to those who pose a threat to national security or public safety. If that is the case, I find it impossible to classify Hendry as a threat to national security or public safety when it was reported that he was only arrested for stealing a motorcycle.

This is worrying because 'threat' is clearly defined so loosely that it may quite easily be interpreted to include juveniles like Hendry, whose detention may be renewed indefinitely. This demonstrates that unchecked extensive powers have been abused and remain open to abuse.

In Soviet Russia, Stalin and other leaders would send criminals, old people, juveniles, political dissidents, writers and intellectuals to the Gulags, located mostly in the extremely remote areas of north-eastern Siberia and in the south-eastern parts of the Soviet Union.

The Gulags were part of a penal system of forced labour employed as a mechanism to repress political opposition - corrective labour camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women's camps, children's camps and transit camps. People were sent there to cut them off from mainstream society so that they would not cause 'problems' to the stability of the general populace. Those detained were denied access to the justice system to determine the veracity of the allegations leveled against them and were held incommunicado.

Questionable purpose

Do we, in this day and age, need to detain or deport people to detention centres as was done in the former Soviet Union? Are Simpang Renggam and the other detention facilities the Malaysian equivalent of the Gulags? The lack of rehabilitation programmes is an indication that there is no genuine effort and commitment to guide perceived offenders back on the right path. This prompts one to query the true purpose of such facilities.

Human Rights Watch published a report last August 2006, 'Convicted before Trial - Indefinite Detention under Malaysia's Emergency Ordinance'. It revealed that of the 3,911 persons detained in Simpang Renggam, only 1,486 were convicts, while 737 were remand prisoners and 1,688 were detained under the EO and DDA.

Therefore, it is no surprise that the facility is overcrowded. Those detained under the EO and the DDA clearly should not be held there. They should, instead, be processed through the criminal justice system.

If the 1,688 inmates are accused of violating the law, then they should be subjected to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.

Why resort to the unconstitutional preventive arbitrary detention measure when the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code can adequately deal with them?

If the detainees are drug pushers, we should prosecute them. If they are accused of violating the law, should we not charge them in the criminal courts? Are we not all equal before the law as enunciated in Article 8 of the Federal Constitution?

Of course some would argue that there is no hard evidence against them, so the next best thing is to detain them to ensure public safety. This is a flimsy and slighting justification and as a citizen of a progressive democracy, I am deeply offended by it.

Our police and prosecution team will see no need to diligently gather enough evidence if they can simply resort to preventive detention measures to detain people without the need to prove anything. How can we justify a departure from the rule of law and natural justice, and violation of constitutional rights - all of which are the fundamental ingredients of a true democracy?

We must strengthen democracy in Malaysia through the strict adherence to the rule of law, natural justice and recognition of civil liberties. We should be prepared to prosecute in the court of law those who violate the law or release them if their guilt cannot be proven. Preventive detention is not the solution to the problems. How many people can we sustain under public expense?

As citizens of a progressive democracy, Malaysians have a right to expect the four ministers to produce a comprehensive review that addresses the deplorable conditions of Simpang Renggam, but more importantly to evaluate the relevance of preventive laws like the EO.

The expansion of facilities for detention will only serve as a quick-fix solution. The review should present reasons to disband related legislation and to reaffirm the Malaysia's commitment to the values of democracy.

ZAID IBRAHIM is the Member of Parliament for Kota Bahru.