The Internal Security Act 1960

On 15th September 2011, Dato Seri Najib Razak announced that the Internal Security Act 1960 will be repealed and law that replaced ISA that would take “take into consideration fundamental rights and freedom based on the Federal Constitution” and ensure “that no individual will be arrested merely on the point of political ideology” is known as the Security offenses (Special Measures) Bill (SOSMA). It was passed by the parliament and given the royal assent on 18th June 2012. SOSMA was enacted in answer to the criticisms against the ISA 1960 and there are some positive changes. It limits the detention period and provides other safeguards against preventive detention. The Prime Minister states that the government would no longer limit individuals’

However, the new Criminal Code Procedure, Section 390c determines the types of devices that can be used for he electronic monitoring. The Commission believes the requirement of court order before monitoring device be attached on any “suspect” as significant process on the human rights. It is also worth noting that the 28-days period of detention is in line with the Commission’s recommendation as contained in the report Review of the Internal Security Act 1960 . But, giving powers to the police authority may jeopardize the purpose of the legislation. The Commission recommends that the extension of the detention period, beyond the initial period of 24- hours, be done through the judiciary to make sure the rights of the suspect or be

Both parts have caused great concern, especially a radical departure from the current rules of evidence. Part VII eliminate any protection given to the accused by the Evidence Act 1950. The use of the summary of evidence (contrary to the evidence itself) and lower the threshold of admissibility would pose a serious obstacle to a fair trial.
Above all, a radical departure from the ordinary rules of evidence could negatively affect the right of the accused to a fair trial. Admissibility of statements made by any person who is dead or cannot be found or is incapable of giving evidence would be unfair and unjust because such person / witness cannot be cross-examined on his statement (Section 8). Allowing the use of testimony of a child of tender years, though not supported and not given under oath, and accomplice and agent provocateur was seen as a threat to a fair