A view on the Internal Security Act

Dear Mr. Tan,

For me, everyone in this world, terrorists, criminals or not, deserves a fair trial. There might be times that the country must use draconian laws to detain a suspect based on intelligence that he might commit a large scale crime. However, at other times, if the country uses the draconian law at any slightest flimsy belief that a person is jeopardizing the security of the country, it can be said that the country is no better than a terrorist himself.

The president council, which advises the president on this matter, will play an important moral role in determining whether ISA should be deployed. The president and his council must not be seen as a trigger-happy entity. As such, the president council, upon receiving intelligence, information and recommendations from the home ministry that ISA should be invoked, must scrutinise the information very carefully.

Firstly, the president council must be at least 95% confident that the Home ministry's justifications on the use of ISA is valid. After that, the council may advise the president accordingly, and the president would have to scrutinise the information again and must be at least 95% confident that the council's justifications are valid. (As to what information and intelligence that can substantiate a 95% confidence, I am not privy to them so I think you need to do more research on it since you are running as president).

And so the Home Ministry gets the nod and proceed to arrest the suspect under ISA. Then, by all means a fair trial should be prepared immediately for him. The president might have no discretion on this matter, but I think it is fairly appropriate and within the constitution that the president can speak-up and urge on this matter and not maintaining silence, since the president is directly involve in the arrest. The president must show a moral authority that advocates a fair trial for everyone.

According to the constitution, the ISA detainee may be detained for up to 2 years, after which the Home ministry can extend the period indefinitely. It needs the assent of the president, but here the president have no discretion.

What the president should do in this case is to push for transparency as to why the ISA detainee is arrested in the first place. Since it is already 2 years, documents which leads to the arrest ought to be published for the public to see. Only then the public can perceive the government as free and fair. If 2 years is too short and the issue is still a national security where documents must be kept secret, then by all means extend the declassification to 3 - 5 years later. But whatever it is, at the end provide justification on the decision of the government and the president.

Sophia Ong