Skip to main content

Balancing Security and Civil Liberties: Why Malaysia Should Retain SOSMA

The terrorist incident that occurred last Saturday in Mulhouse, France, highlights the intricate challenges associated with managing national security threats stemming from extremism.

The perpetrator, an Algerian individual with a documented history of extremist affiliations and mental health concerns, has reignited essential discussions regarding the effectiveness of national security measures in addressing threats from individuals who, despite prior identification by authorities, can still inflict harm.

In this context, Malaysia's national security framework faces a significant dilemma: how to ensure public safety while also protecting civil liberties.

A central topic of debate in Malaysia regarding national security is the contentious Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA), which empowers law enforcement agencies with extensive authority to detain individuals suspected of involvement in national security threats.

This legislation has attracted considerable criticism from human rights organizations and the Malaysian Bar, who contend that it undermines fundamental rights by permitting detention without trial and jeopardizing the integrity of Malaysia's legal framework.

The discourse surrounding SOSMA has intensified following the government's decision to reassess the law, with some advocates calling for its complete abolition.

Nevertheless, the attack in France illustrates the necessity of laws such as SOSMA for national security, as they enable law enforcement to effectively address threats posed by individuals whose actions may not be immediately foreseeable.

The assailant had previously been convicted for promoting terrorism, and despite being under house arrest, he was still able to carry out a violent act.

This situation underscores the risks associated with permitting individuals engaged in extremist activities, who are not actively plotting, to navigate freely within society.

Had more stringent measures, such as preventive detention akin to those allowed under SOSMA, been implemented, it is conceivable that the attack could have been averted.

The rationale for upholding preventive detention laws such as the Security Offenses (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA) is grounded in the necessity for proactive measures in addressing potential security threats.

SOSMA permits Malaysian authorities to detain individuals suspected of involvement in security-related crimes without the immediate requirement of a formal trial.

Detractors contend that this practice infringes upon essential human rights, notably the right to a fair trial. Conversely, advocates of SOSMA argue that the legislation is intended to thwart the escalation of violent extremism before it culminates in significant terrorist incidents.

In the absence of such provisions, individuals engaged in extremist activities may operate without detection, thereby heightening the risk of attacks similar to the one that occurred in Mulhouse.

Examining Malaysia's context alongside Singapore's security framework can provide additional perspective on the significance of preventive legislation.

Singapore continues to enforce the Internal Security Act (ISA), a law originating from the colonial period that permits detention without trial for those suspected of engaging in activities that jeopardize national security.

Although the ISA faces substantial criticism regarding its potential for misuse, it has proven to be a crucial instrument for Singapore in combating terrorism and ensuring stability.

The nation’s effectiveness in managing extremism, highlighted by several notable terrorism-related arrests, is frequently attributed to its stringent security protocols, including preventive detention.

By sustaining a comprehensive security apparatus like the ISA, Singapore has successfully mitigated the threat of terrorism while preserving national security.

The primary distinction between Singapore's methodology and the criticisms directed at SOSMA in Malaysia lies in Singapore's ability to achieve a nuanced equilibrium between national security and civil liberties.

Singapore has implemented protective measures to avert the potential abuse of the Internal Security Act (ISA), which includes the establishment of independent review panels and a framework that promotes transparency regarding the detention of individuals.

In contrast, Malaysia lacks a direct counterpart to Singapore's oversight structures; however, the integration of similar mechanisms into the review process of SOSMA could help prevent misuse of the law while still allowing the government to respond promptly to emerging threats.

The recent attack in France underscores the volatile nature of extremism. In a world that is increasingly interconnected, where individuals may be radicalized through online platforms or other channels, preventive legislation such as SOSMA is essential for safeguarding national security.

It is crucial to ensure that such laws are not exploited and that civil liberties are upheld; nevertheless, Malaysia must acknowledge the importance of implementing strong security measures that facilitate early intervention against potential dangers.

The government's choice to review SOSMA, rather than abolishing it entirely, represents a pragmatic approach to achieving a balance between security and human rights.

Furthermore, the insights gained from the experiences of France and Singapore emphasize the necessity for Malaysia to embrace a holistic strategy in counter-terrorism.

This strategy should encompass not only legal frameworks but also initiatives focused on social integration, community engagement, and counter-radicalization efforts.

Such comprehensive measures will be essential in thwarting the onset of radicalization, thereby ensuring that Malaysia remains resilient in the face of dynamic security threats.

In a nutshell, although the potential for the misuse of SOSMA warrants serious consideration, the legislation is essential for the protection of Malaysia's national security.

The Mulhouse incident underscores the genuine dangers posed by individuals who may initially appear to be minor threats but can develop into significant security challenges.

Rather than abolishing SOSMA, the Malaysian government should concentrate on enhancing its application through improved safeguards, increased oversight, and a definitive commitment to balancing national security with the safeguarding of civil liberties.

Similar to Singapore's approach with the ISA, Malaysia has the opportunity to continuously refine and enhance its legal framework to defend against the increasing and evolving threats of extremism.

Source: https://focusmalaysia.my/balancing-security-and-civil-liberties-why-malaysia-should-retain-sosma/

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.