Ideology, Foreign Manipulation, and the Professional’s Responsibility
The question of why professionals who are educated, respected, and successful individuals, turn to extremism is both psychological and sociological. Their radicalisation is not born of deprivation, but of conviction.
Many are drawn by a deep moral
disillusionment or frustration with perceived global injustices. They see
violence not as cruelty, but as sacrifice i.e. a way to correct what they view
as moral imbalance in the world.
Extremist recruiters understand
this psychology well. They appeal not to greed but to pride, offering educated
minds a sense of purpose and superiority.
Professionals also offer
terrorists what they lack: sophistication. They bring structure, knowledge, and
access to systems that can make extremist operations appear legitimate. The
engineer knows how to build.
The accountant knows how to hide
transactions. The lecturer knows how to persuade. The doctor knows how to gain
trust. Each professional skill becomes a potential tool in the hands of
ideology.
Malaysia’s cases illustrate this
clearly. Dr. Azhari Hussein and Noordin Mohammad Top masterminded bombings
using their technical and financial expertise. Yazid Sufaat used his scientific
background to explore biological weapons.
Mahmud bin Ahmad used his
academic influence to connect Malaysian militants with regional networks in the
southern Philippines. These were not desperate individuals but they were
ambitious, skilled, and respected until ideology corrupted them.
Their examples reveal that
radicalisation among professionals follows a subtle trajectory. It begins with
intellectual sympathy for certain causes, deepens through online or personal
networks, and culminates in practical facilitation. Because their environments -
universities, corporations, or hospitals are built on trust, the warning signs
often go unnoticed.
Another layer to this threat
involves foreign manipulation. Extremism has long served as a convenient
instrument for those who wish to destabilise nations without direct
confrontation. Foreign agencies or groups may exploit Malaysia’s openness,
using professional collaborations, charities, or educational exchanges as
covers for ideological infiltration.
A lecturer may be invited to join
an international research project that gradually exposes him to extremist
narratives. A charitable foundation may receive funding from an entity that
uses humanitarian work as a disguise for financing violence. The line between
cooperation and co-optation can become dangerously thin.
To safeguard against this,
Malaysia must build resilience not only in security agencies but also within
professional communities themselves. Countering extremism is no longer solely
the job of the police or intelligence units. It is a shared social responsibility.
Every profession must embed
ethical and national awareness into its culture. Doctors, engineers, teachers,
and bankers should understand that their roles carry moral and civic duties
beyond technical competence.
Professional bodies can
strengthen this resilience by incorporating counter-radicalisation modules into
licensing and training. Universities should establish ethics and ideological
literacy courses that teach students to recognise manipulative narratives.
Corporations should enforce
transparency in donations, partnerships, and overseas ventures. Banks must
monitor charitable and research-related accounts with greater scrutiny while
ensuring privacy rights are respected.
Legal frameworks must also
evolve. Whistleblowers who report suspicious activities need protection.
Professionals who flag anomalies in grants, donations, or partnerships should
not fear retaliation. When integrity becomes the norm, vigilance becomes instinctive.
Education remains the most
powerful long-term defence. Extremism preys on intellectual rigidity and moral
absolutism. Malaysia’s schools and universities must promote critical thinking,
open dialogue, and respect for diversity. These values act as inoculations
against extremist ideologies. A professional who is intellectually independent
and ethically grounded is far less likely to be manipulated.
At the same time, Malaysia must
remain alert to the possibility that foreign powers could use terrorism as a
destabilising tool. While overt aggression invites condemnation, covert
ideological infiltration can erode national cohesion from within. The best
defence against such tactics is a nation united by integrity and aware of its
vulnerabilities.
Prime Minister Anwar’s message
after the Delhi blast of compassion, solidarity, and zero tolerance for terror
reflects the moral clarity needed in this struggle. Malaysia must mirror that
stance at home by ensuring its own professionals stand as defenders, not
enablers, of peace.
The fight against extremism is no
longer fought solely in battlefields or police operations. It now takes place
in classrooms, boardrooms, clinics, and financial institutions.
The “terrorist in a suit” - educated,
composed, ideologically convinced is a reality that cannot be ignored. But so
too is the “guardian in a suit” that the professional who uses his position to
protect the integrity of his nation.
Malaysia’s survival depends on
which of these two figures prevails. The answer will not be found in fear, but
in ethics, awareness, and unity.
If Malaysia can turn its
professionalism into a shield rather than a weakness, it will not only
neutralise extremism but transform legitimacy itself into its strongest line of
defence.
11.11.2025
Kuala Lumpur.
© All rights reserved.
Comments