Skip to main content

IS: National security against human rights issues

Early of this month, two of three UK school girls (Shamima Begum – 15 years old, Kadiza Sultana – 16 years old, and Amira Abasa – 15 years old) who left in February reportedly married with IS fighters in Syria. When the girls left, their behavior do not cast any doubt to their family members or friends as they prepared themselves with any other teenage girls might make before leaving on vacation. According to Guardian newspaper, the three girls probably recruited by a young woman, Aqsa Mahmood, who is from Scotland now residing in Syria since 2013. These three girls were recruited through social media.

The disturbing question was how they are undetected by their family members, friends, teachers and authorities before they left UK?

No one has any clear picture or definite answer for the said question. Similarly in Malaysia, we have everything to ask for and why some Malaysians exclusively the young persons are attracted to the cause of IS which is false.

IS is so elusive and noxious. By showing ‘encouraging’ videos with easy and attractive language, IS recruiters can brainwash people especially young person downright via social media. For these girls who are in the comfortable life in UK and move to war torn places like Syria and Iraq, some irresistible traits must have convinced them to make such a drastic decision of life.

Unfortunately, some human rights advocates here distrust the actual purpose of these tools which were created predominantly to prevent further terrorist attack to be occurred.

IS is always evolving. Even though PDRM has detained more than 200 suspected IS militants but the danger is still exists. The recent video to call for attack in Malaysia by a suspected terrorist in Syria and subsequent terrorist attack in Puchong has indicated that IS has declared war on Malaysia. Therefore preventive law like SOSMA, POTA and NSCA are necessary to tackle the threats imposed by IS.

Therefore the authorities should ignore the human rights advocates who questioning the legality of such tools for Malaysia. If there is any conflict between human rights and national security issues, in my opinion matters on national security should be prevailed.

The terrorist attack in Rouen, Normandy (France) where a priest was brutally murdered and one of the hostages was seriously injured by two suspected IS terrorists who were killed by the French security forces later. Both of them are at the age of 19 years old. The French authorities believed that both of them are self-radicalized and they carried out the attack with a replica explosive device and hand-held weapons.

At this tender age what had motivated them to kill an elderly man ferociously. How the families and friends failed to notice the sweeping changes on them. Even though French authority has the knowledge about the threat imposed by them and why they failed to stop the attack by detaining them further. Whether the French law does not allowed the preventive measures which are against with the French values and human rights that French is uphold with it.

My question to the French authority is how many innocent people need to be sacrificed to protect the rights of evil characters like Abdel Malik Petitjean and Adel Kermiche. If these terrorists who are born and bred in France wanted to wage terrorist attack and kill many people, why there is need to protect such people then. In my view, the legislators and policy makers not only in France and many Western countries poor in their judgement on the importance of national security against human rights issues.

Meanwhile in Mogadishu, Somalia, a suicide bomber detonated a car with bomb killing more than 10 people. Similarly in Kabul, Istanbul, Nice, Dhaka, and Wurzburg had illustrated that existing laws became irrelevant for IS terrorists. The life of non-believers and their own brother is no longer different for IS as well as the life women and children including infants. For terrorist human rights does not exist.

The biggest headache for most of the western countries now is the clash between national security and human rights issues. For instance, after the London bombing in 2005, the UK government has drawn radical counter terrorism strategies by creating various legislations including the Terrorism Act 2006. The Act provides the authority to detain terrorism suspects without charge for 28 days. The UK also come up with identity cards with support of intelligence agencies and UK Metropolitan Police but was ceased in 2011 through the Identity Documents Act 2010. This mainly because of the pressure from civil liberties groups which questioned the purpose of these cards for authority to be used. That’s give colossal problem for authority to keep track on suspected supporters/ sympathizer /facilitators of IS to be detected and arrested in UK. Even in Singapore they successfully use Internal Security Act to detain and prosecute the suspected terrorists and sympathizers without any fuss. The said Act is working well for them by providing enough power to the security and intelligence agencies to safeguard the national security.

One of the prevalent contributory factors for the continuance terrorist attacks in France and Germany is lacking of strong preventive legislation which gives enough power to the authority to detain suspected terrorists without trial. This notion is fundamentally opposed by the human rights groups in those countries. Unlike them, we have the robust tools like SOSMA, POTA and NSCA to protect our people and nation.

Again, IS is so lethal and without mercy in their action. Unless and until a terrorist attack in our doorsteps, we will not realize how cruel these terrorists are. By then, it is too late.

Therefore we have to set our differences aside and collectively work together for the interest of this nation and to make sure the sovereignty of this nation is well protected.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Smart Security, Free Society: Malaysia’s Data Dilemma

In today’s digitally driven world, national security is no longer confined to borders or traditional threats. Cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and asymmetric warfare have become the new frontiers of conflict. Malaysia, strategically located in Southeast Asia and increasingly exposed to regional tensions and internal vulnerabilities, must strengthen its security apparatus. However, doing so must not come at the cost of civil liberties. Malaysia can enhance its security strategy by leveraging insights from advanced data platforms like those pioneered by Palantir Technologies, while maintaining strong democratic oversight to safeguard the fundamental freedoms protected by the Federal Constitution. Palantir Technologies, a U.S.-based company, gained prominence in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Its core software, Gotham, was designed to integrate fragmented intelligence and provide real-time, actionable insights to military and intelligence agencies. Over the years,...

Syringe Attacks in Malaysia and France: Random Violence or Terrorism? - Part 3

The syringe attack on the 12-year-old son of Pandan MP and former Economy Minister, Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli, has shaken Malaysia. What initially appeared as a rare and bizarre incident now echoes a disturbing pattern witnessed abroad, notably in France. In June 2025, during the Fête de la Musique festival, over 145 people across France reported being pricked with syringes in crowded public areas. In both cases, the weapon of fear was not a gun or bomb but a syringe. When viewed together, the Rafizi incident and the mass needle attacks in France reveal an alarming global trend of unconventional, psychological violence that leaves behind not just physical uncertainty but emotional trauma. The question we must now ask is: are these acts simply random criminality, or should they be treated with the gravity of terrorist attacks? A Pattern Beyond Borders In France, the attacks spanned multiple cities, with 13 confirmed cases in Paris alone. Victims included women, men, and even min...

Constitution of Malaysia: An Introduction Part 5

7 (1) No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed. (2) A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence except where the conviction or acquittal has been quashed and a retrial ordered by a court superior to that by which he was acquitted or convicted.