Skip to main content

SOSMA: Striking a balance between human rights and national security (Part 1)

 THE calls by civil liberty movements in Malaysia to repeal security laws such as the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA), the Prevention of Crime Act (POCA) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) have become a source of concern for the Government.

Under the Part 2 of the Federal Constitution, Malaysians do enjoy the fundamental liberties like protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials, equality and freedom of speech, assembly and association.

The question is whether these liberties can be used to undermine the peace and security of this nation or not.

I am strong believer of the rule of law. The law must protect the people. According to the World Justice Project’s definition of the rule of law is encompassed with accountability, just laws, open government and accessible and impartial dispute resolution.

But for the hate preachers, terrorists and their sympathisers, the rule of law is irrelevant to them. They are in a different belief system which has no regard to universal human rights requirements.

Oddly enough, these nefarious people rely on fundamental rights which are enshrined as in our Federal Constitution and United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights to defend their rights and seek protection.

I could not understand their justification where they are contradicting their own belief system by relying on the rule of law to defend their action which against the interest of this nation.

So, what should the present Government do then? Shield these perpetrators whose intention is to destroy the nation or to protect the people and the nation as in whole?

The Malaysian Bar Council

The Malaysian Bar president Karen Cheah Yee Lynn has released a statement requesting the Government to repeal SOSMA. She stated that national security is not an excuse to limit our fundamental liberties.

She also stated that Malaysia, as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2022–24 term, should seize this opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to human rights protection by repealing SOSMA and other preventive detention laws such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (POTA) and the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA).

Furthermore, Cheah also emphasised that human rights and national security are not mutually exclusive or incompatible. They are, on the contrary, interconnected and complementary. She also declared that there should be no additional attempts to revive debates on preventative detention legislation.

But I wish to disagree with Cheah’s assertion by citing my past articles and emphasising that developed countries such as Singapore and the UK themselves value preventive legislation such as SOSMA. They are aware of the threats posed by terrorists and recognise that it is their duty to safeguard the nation as a whole rather than to protect nefarious people like terrorists who have no regard to the rule of law.

 

Again, there is nothing wrong with such laws. The problem is that certain bad apples within the enforcement agency and some unscrupulous politicians tend to abuse these preventive laws for their selfish political gain.

However, removing such laws is not a solution; rather, it will result in severe security breaches that will destabilise our nation in the future.

The UK and hate preachers

The current security dilemma faced by Malaysia is very much similar with the situation in United Kingdom (UK) now. Before the London bombing in 2005, the UK security forces, through their network of intelligence, received some information regarding terrorist threats but failed to take the warning seriously.

The perception is changed utterly after the bombings in London. Later the investigation reports have indicated that the terrorists involved with such attacks have been indoctrinated with Salafi ideology hate preachers.

These hate preachers, who are wanted by Jordan and Egypt, were given political asylum by the UK and later they become the ideological masters for the present and future home-grown terrorists in the country.

The contemporary paradigm of global terrorist attacks is well linked with hate preachers. The recent London and Manchester attacks are connected to hate preachers in UK. The role of the hate preachers is to instigate their supporters and followers, especially the young people and new converts, to get involved with terrorist related activities.

Generally, these hate preachers disguise themselves as the innocent or genuine preachers but their motives will be unknown to their acquaintances. These preachers will filter and choose listeners or followers by selecting the “sinful”.

They will not necessarily get involved with the attacks directly but serve as the inspirational figures to motivate and urge their herd to commit the act.

The current UK security debacle started many years ago. The influx of foreign radical hate preachers who were allowed to stay and continue their “noble” activities in UK is the primary cause of the current problem.

The people who sanctioned these hate preachers to be in the UK probably never anticipated such atrocities which took placed in London or in Manchester.

Most of them are policymakers who have no knowledge on security matters. In addition, they decide delicate matters on the basis of human rights, which is wrong approach to take on. These radical hate preachers are like “termites”. They destroy a nation using the locals themselves!

Omar Bakri Muhammad and Mustafa Kamel Mustafa, also known as Abu Hamza, had been convicted for radicalising British born young Muslims and new converts. Furthermore, they also play a crucial role to groom another local radical hate preacher, Anjem Choudary, a former solicitor, to continue their cause to radicalise Muslims in UK.

With the help of Omar, Anjem founded al-Muhajiroun. This organisation was banned under the UK Terrorism Act 2000 because of its terror related activities. The Woolwich attacker, Michael Adebolajo and Khuram Butt, the London Bridge terrorist are associated with al-Muhajiroun.

All the current attacks which happened in UK directly or indirectly are connected to these people. Therefore, more of such attacks are imminent in UK. These hate preachers probably have created sleeper cells throughout UK and future attacks can happen anywhere and anytime.

Even though in past the UK security forces have arrested and prosecuted successfully these terrorists but the attacks still occurred because of the influence of people like Omar, Abu Hamza and Anjem in UK. Therefore, the intelligence and security forces in the UK need to play a proactive role by getting help from Muslim stakeholders in the country.

The cooperation from this community is vital to counter this threat in there and they should not demonise this community as a whole. – March 31, 2022

Source:https://focusmalaysia.my/sosma-striking-a-balance-between-human-rights-and-national-security-part-1/

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 ...