Why use ISA on activist Lee Whee?

Civil groups today continued to blast the Barisan Nasional government for its continued use of the oppressive Internal Security Act to ‘terrorise concerned citizens’.

On Friday, Suaram activist Cheng Lee Whee was arrested under the less severe section 28 of the ISA, which does not allow for detention without trial. The 26-year old was released late Saturday evening and ordered to appear in court on Nov 1.

Cheng’s arrest has nevertheless sparked questions as to why the BN government chose to charge her under the ISA when there were other existing laws that could be applied.

Was the BN government trying to send out a message of fear, they questioned.

“While there are various laws to charge a person for any alleged criminal offence, there is absolutely no reason to resort to the ISA,” said P Ramakrishnan, president of Aliran.

“Why can't existing laws be applied to charge citizens for any perceived criminal offence? Is it because, the BN government is afraid that whatever charge that is preferred against these citizens will not stand up to the scrutiny of the court?”

Cheng, who spent 19 hours in a police lock-up before her release, was arrested for spreading false information after she lodged a police report accusing the police of abuse of power in last week’s controversial eviction of a squatter colony in Johor.

Twenty-seven individuals had been arrested for attempting to stop the demolition of the settlement in Kampung Baru Plentong Tengah - a predominantly Malay village akin to Kuala Lumpur’s Kampung Baru.

“According to some legal circles, Section 28 of the ISA does not allow a person to be detained without a trial. That being the case, why then Lee Whee was taken in under the ISA?” asked Ramakrishnan.

“Can the police clarify why the Sedition Act could not have been used to charge Lee Whee? Why is the ISA preferred over the Sedition Act? The Home Minister owes us an explanation and we hope that he will be forthcoming.”

Bad name for the nation

Section 28 of the ISA involves the dissemination of false reports.

According to the section, "Any person who, by word of mouth or in writing or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular or other printed publication or by any other means spreads false reports or makes false statements likely to cause public alarm, shall be guilty of an offence."

According to lawyers, section 28 does not empower the police to detain a suspect without trial. The suspect must be brought to court within 24 hours either to be charged or be further remanded to facilitate police investigation.

“The ISA is not only giving the country an ugly image, it is also denigrating the police and destroying their credibility,” was Ramakrishnan’s parting shot.