I refer to Jeffrey's letter [#1]Milestones in journey to democracy[/#] (April 17) which, amongst others, commented that Suhakam, in its recommendatory role, should not have objected to the usage of the Internal Security Act (ISA) as it is provided under the rule of the land.

One of Suhakam's roles is to study the international conventions that we have signed but we have not executed domestically by way of amending our acts, etc.

Suhakam would be able to answer this better but as I understand from a key Suhakam person, Malaysia has signed an international agreement which among others provided for the right to trial for every individual. It was on this premise that Suhakam has objected to the usage of the ISA and not on the writer's simple understanding of Suhakam's role and application of the laws.

Suhakam in its report to be presented to Parliament tomorrow, would ask the government to amend the current laws with regard to the ISA to follow the international convention that the government itself had signed.

With regard to the fact the government has signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Suhakam would recommend the government to amend certain acts to follow the international convention, in its recommendatory role.

If Suhakam could not recommend such things, what is it supposed to do, just allow all infringements of international conventions that Malaysia has signed on the premise of, oh, our Constitution and Acts did not say that?

It is therefore Suhakam's role to recommend that the Constitution and Acts be amended to follow the international convention and standards on human rights that Malaysia has agreed to be bound to.

The drafter of the ISA, British law professor Hugh Hickling, 80, who stayed on after independence in 1957 to draft the 1960 Act - a successor to the Emergency Ordinance of colonial times which was passed to defeat a communist insurgency - spoke about the ISA in an interview with the Star published yesterday.

It is a little know fact that the government has actually amended the original ISA Act to abolish the powers of the court to make a judicial review of cases of ISA detentions, its only form of check and balances against its abuse.

Hickling said the powers of judges to review government detention orders should never have been removed.

He added: "Since the ISA was drafted in 1960, the law has been amended over and over again, including removing judicial review. We would never have dreamt of doing that even in 1960.

"Even in 1960, we thought that the law needed checks and balances. As soon as you oust judicial review, the executive can do anything it wants."

The law was drafted in the aftermath of the 1948-60 communist revolt, he said. "The Act was never aimed at politicians," added the professor.

Mahathir and his predecessors have several times used the Act to detain opposition figures though they have said the detentions were not for political reasons.

Hickling also said that Malaysia urgently needs a free and vigilant press. "What is more important is to have the repeal of the Printing Presses and Publications Act before you repeal the ISA."

Yet Mahathir said Monday that the government may redraft the publications act, which controls operations of the local media, to make it more effective. The premier also said there was no need to repeal the ISA, which "has served us well".

Just like Tun Salleh Abas, the drafter of the Petroleum Act who lived to see the Act abused, Hickling, the drafter of the ISA, also lived to see his Act abused. Maybe it's just God's way of justice, these men can bear testimony how these Acts have been misused by tyrants.

I also disagree with the writer's opinion that Malaysia's Special Branch is one of the best in the world and therefore their ISA detentions are all without mala fide.

First of all, if Malaysia's Special Branch is one of the best in the world, they must surely be able to provide evidence of the alleged rocket launchers procured by the seven men, rather than just rely on empty talk to deliver the shock effect to fool the naive masses.

The seven men detained did not qualify as men who would rouse racial sentiments - they are made up of the three major races in Malaysia and all save one are from the same party. Furthermore, they depend on each other for support and were united in trying to woo votes from across racial lines. Based on these premises, I don't think that these seven men had the intention to cause racial disturbances, logically it would be furthest from their minds.

Lastly, how do you explain the selective application of the ISA? Some Umno Youth members had threatened to burn down the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall last year - didn't they obviously incited racial sentiments, don't they qualify for ISA detentions under the excuse to safeguard national security?

However, having said that, I must state that I do not wish anyone to be detained under the ISA as it is a non-humane act and it is about time we repeal or at least amend it.