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
Comments