Retain SOSMA: Fortify Malaysia’s National Security Architecture
Malaysia’s Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) continues to occupy a contentious place in national discourse. Since replacing the Internal Security Act (ISA), SOSMA has been scrutinised for its implications on civil liberties, with critics urging its repeal and supporters defending it as a vital tool for safeguarding national security.
A recent political call noting
that the government has “two years left” to abolish SOSMA has reignited this
debate. Yet in a world marked by rising extremism, hybrid warfare,
sophisticated criminal networks, and foreign subversion, the question Malaysia must
confront is not whether SOSMA should be abolished, but how it should be
enhanced.
Retaining SOSMA with structural
reforms, stronger oversight, and precise operational scope is essential for
strengthening Malaysia’s resilience against the complexities of modern security
threats.
The global security environment
is no longer defined by conventional threats alone. Transnational terrorism,
cyber-radicalisation, foreign disinformation campaigns, violent extremism, and
the evolving nature of organised crime demand rapid, intelligence-led
responses.
Traditional criminal procedures,
with their strict evidentiary thresholds and time-bound investigative limits,
often fail to keep pace with threats that can materialise within days. SOSMA’s
special measures including extended pre-charge detention and flexible
evidentiary handling that provide crucial investigative space for dismantling
networks before they can act.
Without such tools, authorities’
risk being forced into reactive rather than preventive action, a dangerous
position when confronting threats designed to exploit legal gaps and procedural
weaknesses.
A comparative analysis of other
democracies reveals that Malaysia is not an outlier in adopting special
security legislation. The United Kingdom’s terrorism framework, for example,
allows enhanced powers such as stop-and-search, extended custodial interrogation,
and restrictions on movement, all underpinned by a culture of independent
oversight.
The office of the Independent
Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, annual transparency reports, and
parliamentary scrutiny ensure that extraordinary powers operate within a
controlled environment.
These features do not weaken
security laws; they legitimise them by embedding accountability into their
design. Malaysia can emulate this model by establishing an independent SOSMA
oversight mechanism with powers to audit cases, issue public reports, and
recommend legislative amendments.
Singapore’s Internal Security Act
(ISA) offers another perspective, grounded in preventive detention and
intelligence-driven security governance. Yet its durability stems from
controlled application focused on terrorism, espionage, and foreign subversion
rather than broad policing of ordinary crime. Its ecosystem of administrative
reviews, ministerial responsibility, and intelligence professionalism ensures
that detention is used selectively and purposefully.
Malaysia’s SOSMA can borrow this
emphasis on precision by refining the categories of offences that fall under
its ambit, ensuring that special measures are invoked only for clearly defined
and demonstrable threats. This reduces opportunities for misuse while
preserving the operational strength needed for serious security cases.
Australia’s counterterrorism
evolution further demonstrates the importance of periodic legislative
recalibration. The country updates its security laws frequently through
statutory reviews, sunset clauses, and parliamentary inquiries. These
mechanisms prevent legal stagnation and ensure that laws adapt to emerging
risks such as lone-wolf attacks, encrypted communications, and extremist online
ecosystems.
By incorporating sunset clauses
and regular review requirements into SOSMA, Malaysia can ensure the law remains
contemporary, balanced, and accountable by avoiding both overreach and
obsolescence.
However, retaining SOSMA without
reform would be irresponsible. Civil-society groups, legal practitioners, and
human rights advocates have repeatedly highlighted legitimate concerns. These
include prolonged detention without trial, limited judicial discretion in bail
decisions, insufficient transparency, and broad offence classifications that
risk sweeping non-security cases into a framework designed for exceptional
threats. These criticisms should not be dismissed as obstacles but embraced as
guidance for meaningful reform.
To strengthen SOSMA’s legitimacy,
reforms should include mandatory judicial authorisation for any extended
detention beyond an initial period, restored judicial discretion for bail, and
regular public reporting on SOSMA case statistics.
A statutory prohibition on using
SOSMA for peaceful political activity would further assure the public that the
law is intended for genuine security threats, not political convenience.
Additionally, establishing an independent SOSMA reviewer similar to the UK’s
independent oversight system would provide continuous monitoring and reduce the
risk of arbitrary application.
Beyond structural reform,
operational improvements are equally vital. Effective special-measures laws
require professional intelligence services, interagency coordination, and
strong prosecutorial capacity. Malaysia must invest in evidence-based policing,
digital forensics, intelligence-sharing platforms, and training that integrates
security priorities with human rights compliance.
Special measures must function as
a bridge to prosecution rather than an alternative to it. This means
investigators must be equipped to convert intelligence leads into admissible
evidence, reducing the need for prolonged detention under special provisions.
Enhancing rehabilitation and deradicalisation programmes would also align SOSMA
with contemporary security frameworks that emphasise long-term threat
management rather than mere containment.
The current political call to
repeal SOSMA does not reflect the full complexity of Malaysia’s security needs.
While rights-based concerns are genuine and must be respected, abolishing SOSMA
outright would leave the nation exposed at a time when threats are more fluid,
interconnected, and unpredictable than ever before.
Without a special-measures
framework, law enforcement agencies risk being legally handicapped when
confronting threats that evolve faster than traditional investigative timelines
allow.
A reformed SOSMA represents the
most balanced path forward by preserving the state’s ability to act decisively
while embedding the safeguards necessary to uphold justice.
Parliament must take ownership of
this reform through transparent deliberation, expert consultation, and periodic
assessment. This ensures that SOSMA remains not only operationally effective
but also publicly accountable and aligned with Malaysia’s democratic values.
Malaysia stands at a decisive
confluence. The choice is not between security and liberty, but between
outdated binaries and nuanced governance.
Retaining and enhancing SOSMA - informed
by global best practices, shaped by local realities, and fortified by strong
safeguards is essential for a secure, democratic, and resilient Malaysia.
04.12.2025
Kuala Lumpur
© All rights reserved.
Comments