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 organisations and the Malaysian Bar, who contend that it undermines fundamental rights by permitting detention without trial and jeopardising the integriy 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.
(Image: AFP/Getty Images)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 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 jeopardise 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 radicalised through online platforms or other channels, preventive legislation such as SOSMA is essential for safeguarding national security.
(Image: CNA)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 emphasise 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-radicalisation efforts.
Such comprehensive measures will be essential in thwarting the onset of radicalisation, 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.
R. Paneir Selvam is the principal consultant of Arunachala Research & Consultancy Sdn Bhd, a think tank specialising in strategic national and geo-political matters.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.
- Focus Malaysia.

---