Sir David Amess, a Conservative MP from Essex, was stabbed to death at his constituency surgery yesterday, in what police are treating as a terrorist attack. It was a regular surgery at Belfairs Methodist Church in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, where he meets with his constituents regularly.
He passed away on the spot. A
constituency surgery, also known as a constituency clinic in the UK, is a
series of one-on-one meetings between a MP and constituents.
Ali Harbi Ali, a British
national of Somali origin, is the 25-year old terrorist who took away Amess’
life. This attack was linked to Islamic extremism, according to the
Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command. A few years ago, he was sent
to the counter-terrorist Prevent scheme, which was aimed at preventing people
from becoming radicalised.
To the uninitiated, Prevent is
the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy.
Ali was never a formal subject
of interest, according to MI5. The MI5, or military intelligence, Section 5, is
the UK’s domestic counter-intelligence and security organisation, and its job
is quite similar to our Special Branch of the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM).
With this tragedy, the
effectiveness of the present Prevent scheme in protecting the public and
prominent people in the UK has been called into question. The truth is, there
is no point in coming up with various strategies and measures in the aftermath
of a terrorist attack, which clearly slipped under the radar of its intelligence
apparatus’ surveillance.
Programmes such as Prevent,
which is being adopted all over the world, is designed to prevent and respond
to terrorist attacks. However, what assumptions are made about these terrorists
who are classified as low-risk terrorists but later, launch lethal attacks, as
in this case?
Until now, it is unclear
whether the perpetrator was born in the UK or acquired citizenship through naturalisation.
Despite condemnation from the British public, no religious organisations in the
UK have spoken out against it, as of now.
Furthermore, the police stated
that this was a lone wolf attack, and Ali would later be declared a martyr by
terrorist groups such as Islamic State or al-Qaeda.
In my opinion, Ali is nothing
more than a coward who attacked a defenceless man.
The victim, who has been an
illustrious MP for 38 years; first in Basildon from 1983 until 1997 when he was
elected to represent Southend West, is married with five children.
The late Amess, according to
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, is one of the sweetest, gentlest person in
Parliament, holding a stellar track record of introducing laws to benefit the
most disadvantaged in their society. This is the second time a sitting MP has
been killed by a terrorist.
Extremists
sending a message
In 2016, Jo Cox, a Labour
Party MP, was assassinated by a far-right extremist, Thomas Mair. She was shot
and stabbed outside a library in Birstall, West Yorkshire, where the politician
was scheduled to hold a constituency surgery. Cox later died in hospital as a
result of her injuries.
It is of my view that these
perpetrators must be classified as terrorists, whether they are Islamic
radicals or far-right extremists. This is because their shared goal is to kill
defenceless and innocent people in the name of a false ideology that has no
concern for the lives of innocent people, including women and children.
Unlike in Malaysia, where the
PDRM ensures the safety of our MPs, in the UK, MPs are free to mingle with
their constituents without fear of being attacked. The assassination of two
sitting British MPs has prompted questions about whether or not MPs are
adequately protected.
The question is what level of
protection should be provided to their MPs, and if the current set of
procedures is adequate and should be enhanced.
Meanwhile, with the present
political atmosphere and economic slump in Malaysia, as well as the rise of the
Taliban and ISIS-K in Afghanistan, it is time for the PDRM or other relevant
authorities to tighten their current procedures to ensure the safety of our
MPs.
One of the most serious
security concerns in the UK is the influx of asylum seekers from war-torn
countries such as Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia; where
sympathisers, supporters, and low-profile terrorists linked to al-Qaeda, ISIS,
or Al Shabab have slipped through the cracks and resettled in the UK as
“genuine’ asylum seekers”.
In the most cases, these radicals
serve as sleeper cells.
For instance, Salman Ramadan
Abedi, the Manchester bomber, is of Libyan descent, and his father is a member
of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). This should have prompted action,
but because of his father’s involvement in terrorist operations in Libya, he
poses a threat to UK society.
Unfortunately, the UK security
and intelligence apparatus did not consider Salman to be a high-risk terrorist.
When he detonated an improvised explosive device at the Manchester Arena in
2017, he killed more than 20 people and injured more than 1,000 people.
Ali and Salman have a lot in
common since they both hail from families that came from war-torn nations,
where the terrorist groups actively involved with civil wars in the respective
countries.
The motivations that may have
inspired them to carry out such attacks as a kind of retaliation against UK
troops fighting in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq, killing their “brothers and
sisters”. They believed they were
fighting infidels who were attempting to undermine their religion.
Both attacks were carried out
by lone wolf terrorists who are tough to track down and function as sleeper
cells. Despite being under the watchful eye of security and intelligence
organisations, they are considered low-risk.
I agree that one cannot
monitor every single movement of a supporter, sympathiser, or “low risk”
terrorist, but those who indulge in such false doctrine pose a threat to a
nation’s peace and security.
As a result, the security
forces cannot rely on present strategies and must constantly innovate by
utilising technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), to track the
activities of these hazardous individuals.
Crack
the whip
Terrorists, in a nutshell, are not affiliated with any religion or race. They are misguided individuals who must be kept away from the general public. This is because they believe that everything they are doing and will do in the future is correct. They have no regard for the rule of law or ordinary people’s lives, including women and children.
And when terrorists commit
atrocities in the name of religion, religious leaders must take immediate
action by condemning it and reject the terrorists who use religion for personal
gratification.
What occurred to Amess cannot
be viewed as a one-off occurrence. It can strike anyone at any time and in any
place. Terrorists, particularly lone wolves, target prominent people such as
Cox and Amess in order to reinvigorate their false ideology.
Such attacks are also
necessary to send a message to their “comrades” to continue with their
barbarous acts.
These terrorists are
irrational individuals and a threat to humanity. These extremists have shown
that they have little regard for human life as shown by their atrocities in
Afghanistan, Yemen, Mozambique, Nigeria, Mali, and Somalia. Not only do the
lives of MPs matter but so do the lives of ordinary people.
Therefore, the present criminal justice system, not only in the UK but throughout the world, must take aggressive measures to severely punish these terrorists. – Oct 17, 2021
Comments