The global security landscape is shifting rapidly. The recent remarks by MI5 Director-General Ken McCallum point to a “new era” where the threat is no longer limited to traditional terrorism. Today, states like Russia, China, and Iran are using espionage, sabotage, digital propaganda, and even proxy violence to destabilise rival nations.
This convergence of state
hostility with extremist tactics signals a significant evolution in the threat
environment, one that Malaysia must urgently recognise.
For decades, Malaysia’s national
security apparatus has been shaped around internal stability,
counter-insurgency, and conventional counter-terrorism. These remain relevant,
but they are no longer sufficient.
The threats we face now are more
complex, diffuse, and layered. They involve cyber intrusions into government
databases, attempts to manipulate domestic narratives through disinformation,
and the radicalisation of young people via encrypted social media platforms. In
short, we are now navigating a hybrid threat environment, one that blends
terrorism, espionage, and digital warfare.
Adopting an effective approach to
contemporary security challenges demands a shift in mindset and the development
of a new strategic framework. In this context, Australia’s recently revised
counter-terrorism strategy, titled “A Safer Australia”, serves as a significant
source of insight.
While the Australian context
differs from Malaysia’s in several important ways, its strategic thinking is
highly transferable. The document is clear in its diagnosis: terrorism today is
not just about bombs and guns, but also about ideas, data, and digital
influence.
Australia’s multi-pronged
response recognises that effective counter-terrorism must combine prevention,
protection, and community resilience in equal measure. Malaysia would be wise
to adopt a similar philosophy.
At the core of Australia’s
strategy are four pillars: Protecting People, Preventing Extremism, Modernising
Capabilities, and Cooperation at All Levels. These are not just slogans but they
are operational goals backed by serious investment and policy reform. For
Malaysia, the logic behind these pillars deserves deeper scrutiny.
First, protecting people in the
Malaysian context must go beyond hardening infrastructure. Our “people” also
include communities vulnerable to radicalisation, online spaces flooded with
disinformation, and academic institutions at risk of intellectual property
theft or covert foreign influence.
As Malaysia’s economy becomes
more knowledge and technology-driven, the security of our universities,
research hubs, and digital infrastructure must be treated as national
priorities. A power grid taken offline, or a major university compromised by
foreign cyberespionage, could be as damaging as a physical attack.
Second, stopping the spread of
extremism requires a fundamental rethink of how we approach radicalisation. The
British experience, as highlighted by MI5, shows that minors: some as young as
14 years old are being drawn into violent ideologies.
Malaysia is not immune. The
digital ecosystem in which Malaysian youth operate is transnational,
decentralised, and largely unregulated. Malaysia needs to enhance its “soft
security” mechanisms: digital literacy in schools, counselling services for
at-risk youth, interfaith education, and community-based early intervention
programs. Preventing radicalisation is not just the job of the police or
security agencies but it must also involve educators, parents, religious
leaders, and tech platforms.
Third, modernising
counter-terrorism capabilities is no longer optional. Malaysia’s security
agencies need tools on par with the threats they face. This means investing in
artificial intelligence for threat detection, data analytics for behavioural
modelling, and encrypted communication for inter-agency collaboration.
However, the use of such tools
must be accompanied by strong legal safeguards. Overreliance on surveillance
technology without oversight risks undermining civil liberties and public
trust—two things Malaysia cannot afford to lose in a time of growing political
and social complexity.
Fourth, cooperation across all
levels of governance is essential. In Australia, the federal government works
closely with state and territory administrations, as well as community
organisations, to create a united front. Malaysia must do the same.
Security cannot be left to the
federal level alone. State governments, especially in border-sensitive areas
like Sabah and Sarawak, must be integrated into the national strategy. In
addition, Malaysia should strengthen intelligence cooperation with ASEAN
partners and friendly powers such as Australia, Singapore, and the UK. Security
today is collaborative, not siloed.
Critically, Malaysia also needs
to be honest about its unique vulnerabilities. Our diverse society is a
strength, but also a potential target for manipulation. Foreign actors could
exploit ethnic or religious tensions to stoke unrest or influence political
outcomes.
We’ve already seen such tactics
employed in other Southeast Asian countries. A foreign-backed social media
campaign could undermine trust in electoral institutions or sow discord over
issues like refugee policy or maritime disputes. These forms of influence are
subtle but corrosive and they require not only technical countermeasures but
also political courage and public transparency.
Another area of concern is our
dependence on global technology supply chains. Malaysia is a key node in
sectors like semiconductor packaging and electronics manufacturing. This makes
us a strategic partner but also a strategic vulnerability.
We must guard against becoming a
soft entry point for hostile actors seeking to access proprietary technologies
or intellectual property. Strengthening corporate cybersecurity, tightening
foreign investment screening, and enforcing academic research protocols should
become standard parts of national security planning.
Finally, Malaysia must safeguard
its strategic autonomy. As great-power competition intensifies in Asia, we are
likely to face pressure to “choose sides” especially on security matters. But
Malaysia’s traditional policy of non-alignment should not mean strategic
passivity.
We need to engage proactively
with all major powers, while maintaining clear red lines about sovereignty,
transparency, and the rule of law. National security in the 21st century is not
just about defending territory but it’s about defending democratic
institutions, public confidence, and intellectual integrity.
In conclusion, Malaysia stands at
a critical juncture. We can either treat the emerging threats as isolated
incidents, or we can develop a cohesive, forward-looking national strategy that
recognises the hybrid nature of today’s security environment. The UK’s warning
and Australia’s response both point in the same direction: the rules of
engagement have changed.
If Malaysia wants to avoid being
caught off guard, we must act now by protecting our digital borders, investing
in our people, modernising our institutions, and building national unity in the
face of rising complexity. The time for reactive security is over. Proactive
resilience is the only way forward.
21.10.2025
Kuala lumpur.
Comments