KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 19 — On the heels of calls for the repeal of the Sedition Act 1948, a human rights group demanded today an end to the Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures) 1985, which allows for detentions without trial similar to the now defunct Internal Security Act (ISA).

Calling the 1985 legislation “draconian”, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) said there were enough existing laws to deal with drug offences.

“This act has to be done away with, as we already have enough laws to deal with drug related offences, one of it being DDA 1952,” Suaram’s executive director Yap Swee Seng told a news conference here, referring to an older version of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

“This is a twin to the ISA and the EO, which the government has abolished. The ISA and EO may be long gone but its traits live on DDA 1985,” he added.

The EO or Emergency Ordinance, which was introduced following the May 1969 race riots and later used to curb the spread of gangsterism, was repealed in 2011.

Yap said those arrested under the DDA have been detained arbitrarily and for lengthy periods by the police for investigation without being tried in a court of law.

He added that the details of the investigations were also never made public.

He also said former detainees have related incidents where they were “tortured to submission” while under detention.

“What’s important to note here is that the detainee would be stripped of his or her rights to demand for a trial in court. This means that the DDA 1985 has snuffed the function of a court of law, and the minister assumes control‎,” Yap said.

In contrast, Yap said the DDA 1952 allowed for lawyers to intervene within the first two weeks of an individual’s detention.

He said the 1985 law had not proved to be effective in combatting drug-related crimes, pointing to statistics from the National Anti-Drug Agency between 2008 and 2013.

Yap urged the government to withdraw the 1985 law and release all those currently detained under it, to be tried under a fairer law that guarantees human rights.

He further described DDA 1985 as a “sunset clause”, which means it must be renewed every five years when it expires, pointing out the last time it was renewed was in 2010.

“Section 1(4) of the constitution states that it is up to the Parliament to decide whether it wants to continue having the law or let it ‘expire’ on its own,” he said, referring to the Federal Constitution.

“We sincerely hope that the MPs will not vote to renew this law again, in the parliamentary seating,” he added.