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