KUALA LUMPUR, July 16 – Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar clarified today that the police are not seeking fresh laws permitting “preventive detention” but need new “preventive laws” that could offer protection for witnesses against criminals.

The national police chief pointed out that such preventive laws would give the police the power to record statements from witnesses without subjecting them to testifying openly in court.

“Now, witnesses daren’t come forward to help our probes because they fear retaliation from gang members and so on.

“And when these witnesses do not help us, how do we bring these cases to court?” he told a press conference this afternoon.

“This is the reason why we need a preventive law similar to the Emergency Ordinance (EO) that was repealed... or similar to any kind of law that gives us the power to record witness statements without putting them in court,” he added.

Earlier today, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail rejected the home ministry’s bid to reintroduce preventive detention laws, saying he will never agree to them.

The government’s top lawyer said he strongly believed the existing laws were sufficient to deal with Malaysia’s security issues, indicating his support for calls to reform the legislation and free up civil liberties.

“I will never agree to preventive detention,” Abdul Gani was quoted as saying by the Malaysiakini news portal after a seminar on cybercrime in Bangi.

“I am a strong advocate of the present laws without preventive detention... I have full confidence that enforcement officers can do their jobs without having to rely on such draconian laws,” he was quoted adding.

But Khalid stressed that it was not “preventive detention” that the police are seeking.

“I am not talking about preventive detention. Of course, it will be followed by detention... but I do not want to see it as preventive detention,” he said.

Last week, former IGP Tan Sri Musa Hassan was quoted as saying in The Star Online that previous preventive laws had offered victims the kind of protection they need, including allowing them to give evidence without going to court.

The Najib administration had announced it would repeal several colonial-era laws last year as part of its legislative reform initiative.

It got the ball rolling with the much-dreaded Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Emergency Ordinance (EO), which drew widespread condemnation as a political tool to curb dissent.

The ISA was replaced by the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma), which the A-G pointed out prescribed detention but only for the purpose of investigation, effectively limiting the home minister’s discretionary powers.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and the police have sought to attribute complaints of rising crime to the repeal of the EO, but it is unclear which crimes have been directly linked to the released detainees.

The EO was introduced in 1969 to deal with the May 13 riots and gave the police broad powers to detain individuals indefinitely without trial.

Authorities say the law had been reserved for “hardened criminals” and organised crime, but had used its powers against everyday snatch thieves and, most controversially, six Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) members including MP Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj as they were headed for the 2011 Bersih rally.

When explaining the rationale for repealing the law last year, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said the banishment powers it had offered was rendered obsolete by technology and that police must adapt to the new reality.

Civil society groups and the Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers have also been lobbying the federal government to repeal the Sedition Act, criticising the 65-year-old law as archaic and another political tool to rein in disagreement.

Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had announced last October the National Harmony Act would replace the Sedition Act. A recent spat among the Najib Cabinet members over its repeal had cast a cloud on the reform measure.

But Abdul Gani said today that his team is in the middle of drafting the new law. He did not indicate when it would be ready to be presented to Parliament.