KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 3 — The government has regressed in reforming the law by inserting a preventive detention clause in the Prevention of Crime Act (PCA), the Bar Council said today, adding that the addition of safeguards were limited and cosmetic in nature.

Its chief Christopher Leong described the controversial clause that was passed in the Dewan Rakyat as a "great blow to the rule of law in Malaysia" as the amendments effectively deny fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.

“The purported safeguards introduced into the Prevention of Crime Act 1959, namely, the establishment of the Prevention of Crime Board, and the right of judicial review against any orders imposed by the Prevention of Crime Board for preventive detention without trial, are illusory and meaningless,” he said in a statement.

The Prevention of Crime (Amendment and Extension) 2013 Bill, was passed early this morning after Parliament extended past midnight yesterday, despite protests from opposition lawmakers who accused the government of backpedaling on its promise for political reform by reinstating arbitrary detention powers.

According to the amendment Bills for the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code tabled for first reading last week, Putrajaya was aiming to put in stricter rules on gangsterism and grant wider enforcement powers to the authorities when rounding up criminals.

Leong pointed out that with the amendments, the board has limited utility as it is designed to be wholly dependent upon the report of the Inquiry Officer.

“The Board has no power to inquire into or re-examine the accuracy and veracity of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the grounds for the said findings.

“The Inquiry Officer is appointed by the Minister and has sole conduct of any inquiry under the Prevention of Crime Act,” he said.

The head of the professional body of some 12,000 lawyers in Peninsular Malaysia also said that raising the number of people on the law's review board from three to five was “cosmetic”.

“The limited access to the courts on judicial review provided in the amended Act is rendered meaningless by other amendments introduced in the same Act.

“The new s.15A expressly prohibits any judicial review by the Courts with respect to any police supervision order imposed on a person, save on procedural grounds,” he said.

Leong also noted that the Inquiry Officer and the board may refuse to provide any information and document to the court and the affected person on the basis that it would be against the public interest to do so.

“It is a sad day for Malaysia when those who make law do not understand the principle of the rule of law,” he said.