A motion to discuss the alleged torture of those detained under the now
defunct Internal Security Act (ISA) was rejected by the Dewan Rakyat
speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia in Parliament today.
"Suhakam has been there to interview the detainees. There has been action taken," argued Pandikar.
As
for the matter of Iraqi national Sami Hammad, who is currently on
hunger strike with several other detainees whose ISA detention is still
ongoing, the speaker said that his case involves national security and
is not suitable for debate.
"In his case, it concerns (national) security and this involves secrecy. It is not logical for me to allow it to be discussed.
“There is no (urgent) need,” contended Pandikar (left).
Standing
Order 18(1) states that House proceedings can be suspended and a motion
to discuss a matter can be tabled if it is specific, requires urgent
action and is of public interest.
Pandikar added that even with
the new Security Offenses (Special Measures) Act 2012 superseding the
ISA, detainees held under the old security law must still serve out the
term of their detention order.
“This is allowed under Section
32(2)(a) of the new law, though the (home) minister has discretionary
powers to rescind the order.”
Bakri MP Er Teck Hwa (left)
filed the motion yesterday under Standing Order 18 (1), pointing to
Malaysiakini and Suhakam reports that highlighted alleged torture of ISA
detainees.
The reports came after a series of notes describing
the incidents were apparently smuggled out of the Kamunting Detention
Facility and distributed to the press and other parties.
Earlier
today, the speaker also rejected in chambers another petition of appeal
by Er filed under Standing Order 19 on the plight of residents of
Pengerang, Johor who complained about problems over the relocation and
replacement of cemetery sites affected by a Petronas refinery project.
The petition aimed to ask Parliament to discuss their plight.
In
rejecting the petition, Pandikar pointed to technical errors in the
document such as the presence of non-Pengerang residents in the list of
signatories, and pointed out that the matter of cemetery land is under
the state government’s purview, not the federal government.
No comments:
Post a Comment