“When the prisoner first arrives at the interrogation center, he is deprived of his clothes, watch and spectacles. He is issued with prison clothing, consisting of a t-shirt or singlet and ill-fitting trousers without a belt, so that in all times, he is left in the humiliating position of having to hold them up.
Throughout the 60-day period, the prisoner is kept in solitary, in complete solitary confinement. Of the ex-detainees and detainees families from whom Amnesty International has received testimony, not a single case has been reported of a prisoner who has not been held in solitary confinement.
Initially, a detainee is subjected to continuous interrogation for long periods without sleep- periods of continuous interrogation from 48 to 72 hours are common, and in one case of 7 days. The detainee is held in a dimly lit windowless cell, with very poor ventilation, infected with mosquitoes and other insects and not infrequently given burmin.
There is no furniture in the cell. The prisoner’s bed consists of little more than a concrete platform with perhaps some wooden planks. After a few weeks, some prisoners are issued with mattresses, but these are filthy, urine-stained and
infested with bed bugs. Despite of the poor ventilation and the fact that many cells are underground, the prisoner’s cell is extremely hot and uncomfortably, according to many prisoners, hot in resembling an
oven.
The prisoners are completely denied soap, toothbrush, towel and comb, or in many cases, in some cases, washing and toilet facilities. In some cases, only after seven weeks, were prisoners allowed to bathe. They were not provided with a towel for that time; they were forced to dry themselves in their own clothes. These are some of the experiences.
Abdul Razak Othman is a lawyer, a senior lawyer known to all of us in the panel, former chairman of Parti Rakyat Malaysia, and he gets his experiences here in the same way- “I was given prison clothes which are normally worn for about a weak before a new change of clothes was allowed. I walked barefoot, as no slippers were provided.
I slept on wooden planks with no mattress. I was interrogated nearly everyday. I would be taken to a very dark room which was entirely painted in black. A light would shine right in front of my face. Normally about four to five interrogators would be present. The interrogations were intended to brainwash me,” and so on, and so on.
These were the descriptions, ladies and gentlemen, in 1978.
I acted for 3 persons in the operation lalang arrests. One of them, at that time was a young man like Shabrimi. He was the youngest detainee. He was 25 years old. His name was Julian Jeseeran. He was detained for the first 60 days.
For those of you who are not that familiar with the legal framework, the ISA allows a first detention of sixty days, and
after that, further periods of two years detention at a time, which is renewable indefinitely. And I think there is something we ought to know that in Malaysia we have detained a person without trial, without any proof of guilt, without trial and kept the person in jail for up to sixteen years.
That’s what we’ve done. And that’s not something to be proud of.
That is how long- the longest ISA detention in this country is- 16 years.
The man was arrested as a young man in his 20s and he was forgotten about. And it was only after the operation lalang, detainees went to Kamunting, they found him there – forgotten about. And because of the campaign for the release of detainees in operation lalang, he was released together with them, and they came out in 1989. But he was almost a man of 40 by the time he came out.
Sixteen years of youth over, without proof of guilt of any offence. Without proof of guilt.
That is what we have done.
And its not just the time in jail, it’s the kind of… I think there’s no other word but torture … and I will only use that word. Torture. The torture they are subjected to.
It is not just physical beating. Let us not look at torture as just physical beating. The special branch officers can break a man or a woman to a shriveling hulk, to shriveling huddle, a wreck of a person without touching him… without physically touching him. They will break you, they can , and they’ve shown it.
That is why they want to take you away, they want the law which can allow them to kidnap you in the middle of the night from your house, or like Raja Petra, like a bunch of thugs, they stop him in the middle of the road, like a bunch of robbers and they kidnap him physically from his wife and child. And they take him to a dark cell.
This is what the ISA can do to you. They know that under that law, they can hold you for 60 days in a room, and they put the thought in your head they can do anything to you. And whilst they’re threatening you, they’re also telling you, “I can go out, I can rape your wife, I can beat your child,” and they put in all sorts of thoughts into your head and that is what use to break your mind.
Our judiciary unfortunately, and I have to say this, unfortunately took a very much more hands-off approach, and virtually basically gave the executive a blank cheque to detain.
In other words all the detaining authorities had to do in Malaysia, was to say in the affidavit, I believe that Shabrimi, for
example, is a threat to national security. Full stop. And they say I won’t look into it. I, the court now, cannot ask for the basis, I cannot evaluate that.
And since the executive has said so, I must accept it. And unfortunately that is the state of the law, that so when we.. cases in ‘69 established that test, when we tried to challenge the test in 1987, the Supreme Court also maintained that test.
Its very interesting that, and in fact I remember one of the lawyers in the ‘87 cases actually telling the judge in that particular case, “Even in South Africa my lord, they use an objective test.” What we call the objective test, meaning requiring the police to produce some evidence.
And the judge got quite upset” What do you mean South Africa?” he said. He said “No, even in South Africa they ask for
evidence… why can’t we do the same here?” Judge said no; Supreme Court agreed with him unfortunately.
So ladies and gentlemen, I think it’s important to sit back, and whilst we take in the reality of the ISA, I think we must also take the approach that knowing the ISA is also about empowerment, a lot of people are fearful about the ISA.
A lot of people want to do something, they want to change things for the better, but when people start reminding them, “Hey, don’t do this, you’ll get arrested under the ISA, you get locked up”, they worry, sit down, they say, let me
get on with my life … because of the ISA.
And if that is going to happen, then the ISA has worked. The ISA has worked. Because that’s what its there for. It is there for to make sure that all of us are frightened of the ISA. Are frightened to step out, do anything, to work to bring change by peaceful means. And if it makes us /increases that mindset, it has worked
They arrest people now also…when people are showing they’re not fearful, people are coming out, demanding for change, then they say ah we’ll go one step further. I’ve to turn the threat into a real one, so I arrest a few people… so
the people don’t see it as academic, they see it as real arrests.
And they hope by arresting 10 people, that all of you will quietly sit down, go back home, lead your own lives, nothing will change. That’s what they want.”
- Sivarasa Rasiah, human rights lawyer and director of SUARAM.
To read the full speech, go to http://uppikdasar.tripod.com/activities/isasiva.htm
2 Comments
December 18, 2007 at 8:15 pm
The ISA is a very good tool for producing clones.
December 22, 2007 at 3:48 pm
clones of the keris-waving sort?
Merry Kerismas!