Skip to main content

SOSMA: How S’pore and the UK deal with terrorists, leaving politics behind (Part 2)

IN the last article, we spoke about how politicians should understand the importance of having counter-terrorism laws to combat the ever-evolving terror landscape.

Here we will talk about how our neighbour and former imperial master, the UK, had carved up their own laws to deal with terrorists and their ruthless networks.

Take Singapore for example, it has retained the Internal Security Act (ISA) as they insist the law is still relevant because it permits authorities to respond quickly and effectively to threats to the country’s security. The ISA is actually derived from Malaysian law, which Singapore retained after the Separation in 1965.

Then-Malaysian prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak abolished it in 2012 and replaced it with the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA), which grants detainees rights to file habeas corpus.

As for Singapore’s ISA, Part II, Chapter II of the law grants the power of preventative detention, which is one of the most important elements of the Act.

The Home Affairs Minister has the authority to detain anyone accused of constituting a threat to Singapore’s internal security for up to 30 days.

Following that, the minister may make an Order of Custody extending the imprisonment time to a maximum of two years, subject to the consent of Singapore’s president.

Furthermore, the president also has the authority to extend the Order’s term for up to two years at a time.

The ISA allows the State to prosecute those who spread false information to cause public alarm, to close schools or educational institutions that are used for purposes that are harmful to Singapore’s interests and to authorise security forces to take all necessary measures to secure certain protected areas, including those that are “dangerous or fatal to human life.”

Despite the opposition’s accusations that the ISA is a draconian law, the Singapore Government disagrees.

In 2011, then-Singapore Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Teo Chee Hean, who is now the Coordinating Minister for National Security, stated that preventive detention allows for a more thorough assessment of a threat than a criminal case, which requires the court to consider only the specific acts related to the charge.

Detaining people who have not committed overt crimes that justify punishment, he added, allows for preventive measures to be taken to lessen threats before they become genuine harm.

In a nutshell, national security is paramount and ordinary people’s lives cannot be jeopardised for the sake of protecting some persons who may pose a threat to any nation’s national security.

UK terrorism laws

Since 2000, the United Kingdom has implemented a number of anti-terrorism laws. The Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Terrorism Act 2006, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act 2010, the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Justice and Security Act 2013, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 are the laws in question.

The Terrorism Act of 2000 is the most important anti-terrorism law in the United Kingdom. This Act defines terrorism, both inside and outside the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the following activities, according to the UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

So what constitutes a threat in the UK? To begin with, a significant act of violence against a person; secondly, there is significant property destruction and thirdly, jeopardising a person’s life (other than the perpetrator’s).

Fourthly, posing a serious threat to the public’s health or safety, or a segment of the public’s health or safety; and finally, activity designed to seriously disrupt or interfere with an electronic system.

It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism offence, a person does not actually have to commit what could be considered a terrorist attack. Planning, assisting and even collecting information on how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism legislation.

Individuals who conduct terrorism-related offences have political, religious, racial, and/or ideological reasons, as opposed to ordinary criminal motivations, such as personal gain or revenge, as recognised by the CPS.

The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 (CTSA) is the most recent legislation. This Act eliminates the possibility of early release for anyone convicted of a significant terror offence, requiring them to serve the entirety of their sentence in prison.

The most severe offenders now face a minimum of 14 years in prison and up to 25 years on probation, with harsher supervision. If they are proven guilty of planning or carrying out acts of terrorism in which lives were lost or endangered.

The Act includes, among other things, a new “Serious Terrorism Sentence” for dangerous offenders, which includes a 14-year minimum prison sentence and up to 25 years of supervised release.

Secondly, for the most dangerous offenders who get Extended Determinate Sentences, early release will be phased out in favour of serving the entire sentence in custody.

Thirdly, extending the maximum sentence for a variety of terror offences, including participation in a proscribed organisation, from ten to fourteen years.

Fourthly, all terror offenders must serve a minimum of 12 months on probation, and adult offenders must undergo polygraph examinations

Then, the UK has expanded the kind of crimes that can be classified as terror-related to ensure that they carry harsher penalties and that offenders are subject to the Registered Terrorist Offender reporting obligations when they are released.

Finally, through increasing Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures and supporting the implementation of Serious Crime Prevention Orders in terrorism instances, Counter-Terrorism Policing and the Security Service will have more disruption and risk management measures at their disposal.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, the majority of Singaporean and British politicians were fully aware of the importance of protecting national security.

While the UK continues to update anti-terrorism legislation in order to prevent and counter terrorist acts, Singapore just retained the ISA.

Civil Liberties movements have a considerable presence and influence on human rights issues in the UK but in light of the ongoing terrorist attacks on their soil, they are willing to give in for the sake of national security.

Terrorism poses a substantial threat to the UK, according to gov.uk, meaning that an attack is likely.

Surprisingly, many Malaysian lawmakers are uninformed on the gravity of these challenges, and they routinely regress by advocating for the removal of such laws.

The question is whether, in the event of a full-fledged terrorist attack, such as the Bali or London bombings, will we then recognise the severity of the situation and take the required precautions?

That is why a pre-emptive law such as the SOSMA has a purpose. Prevention is always better than cure. Before they approved or disapproved any security legislation, did they seek consultation from professionals like the Special Branch of PDRM?

In the future, legislators should at the very least consult with professionals in the field of terrorism, such as officers from the Special Branch and independent experts before making any decisions about security laws.

They must keep in mind that one of their key responsibilities is to safeguard the country’s sovereignty. They owe it to the taxpayers. We must always seek progressive solutions to ensure the country’s peace and security.

And that is our leaders’ primary responsibility, not indulge in unnecessary politics. – March 27, 2022

Source: https://focusmalaysia.my/sosma-how-spore-and-the-uk-deal-with-terrorists-leaving-politics-behind-part-2/ 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

India-Malaysia ties and the future

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is on his first official visit to India. The main aim of this visit is to seek support for Malaysia’s application to join Brics and to fortify bilateral ties, as the country is keen to improve its connections with one of the rapidly expanding economies in Asia. In light of the increasing crumbling of the global order, particularly stemming from trade disputes between the United States and China, as well as the proxy conflict involving the United States and Russia, Malaysia is encouraged to reassess its foreign policy to uphold its neutral stance. Given India’s status as the largest democracy and the fifth-largest economy globally, along with its notable advancements in indigenous space and defence technologies, it is proposed that India emerge as Malaysia’s key partner in the years ahead. Why India is important for Malaysia The historical ties between India and Malaysia extend back several centuries, with significant Indian cultural, religious, and administ...

THE HISTORY OF TERRORISM: MORE THAN 200 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT

The history of terrorism dates back at least 1500 years when Jewish resistance groups (66 - 72 A.D.) known as Zealots killed Roman soldiers and destroyed Roman property. The term assassin comes from a Shi'ite Muslim sect (Nizari Isma'ilis - also known as hashashins "hashish-eaters") fighting Sunni Muslims (1090 - 1275) and during Medieval Christendom resisting occupation during the Crusades (1095-1291). The hashashins were known to spread terror in the form of murder, including women and children. The brotherhood of Assassins committed terror so as to gain paradise and seventy-two virgins if killed and to receive unlimited hashish while on earth. The modern development of terrorism began during the French Revolution's Reign of Terror (1793 - 1794). During this period the term terrorism was first coined. Through the past two hundred years, terrorism has been used to achieve political ends and has developed as a tool for liberation, oppression, and i...

The by-election in Kuala Kubu Baharu (KKB) and the Indian electorate

  I was born in Malaysia, belonging to the Indian ethnic group, which constitutes approximately 7% of the country's total population. My durable credence is that I am Malaysian first and foremost, and only then do I identify myself as Indian. Regrettably, it saddens me to witness and hear about the actions of certain politicians who question my loyalty to Malaysia. What is even more disheartening is that some Malaysians have been influenced by the manipulative rhetoric of these self-serving politicians. Recently, I have observed numerous discussions on both mainstream and online news platforms regarding the recognition and inclusion of Indians by ruling parties. Surprisingly, even the opposition has displayed a significant interest in the welfare of Indians. Upon contemplating the reasons behind this sudden surge in attention towards Indians, it becomes evident that it is primarily driven by the upcoming Kuala Kubu Baharu (KKB) by-election. It is noteworthy that such ...