Resilience Against Terror Malaysia S Hard Lessons

---

 
MORE than two decades after 9/11, the global understanding of terrorism has evolved but so too has its complexity.
The threat is no longer confined to large networks orchestrating spectacular attacks from afar. Instead, it often emerges through smaller, more fragmented acts that are no less dangerous. For Malaysia, this evolution has been both visible and sobering.
The grenade attack at the Movida Bar in 2016, the Ulu Tiram police station assault in 2024, and the earlier Sauk siege in 2000 reveal a dangerous trajectory from organised insurgencies to lone-wolf extremism which all with roots in ideology, grievance, and fractured identity.
Each of these incidents carries its own lessons, but all reflect a common failure to anticipate and pre-empt the signals of radicalisation.
In 2016, when a grenade was thrown into the Movida Bar during a football screening, the initial reaction was to treat it as an isolated criminal act.
Only later was it recognised as Malaysia’s first ISIS-linked attack. This delay in understanding the ideological motivation behind the violence highlights the ongoing challenge of distinguishing between crime and terror in their earliest stages.

(Image: AFP/Getty Images)It also demonstrates how radical ideologies are capable of penetrating urban, multicultural spaces striking symbols of social normalcy to provoke fear and moral outrage.
The 2024 Ulu Tiram attack brought a different kind of shock. A lone attacker stormed a police station, armed with a parang and a stolen weapon, killing two officers. What set this apart was not just the brazenness of the act but the attacker’s isolation.
Unlike earlier threats that involved organised groups or networks, this individual had reportedly become radicalised within a domestic environment with familial connections raising further alarm.
The attack challenged assumptions that extremism could be contained by monitoring known organisations. It also underscored the new reality—ideological violence can emerge from disconnection, not just association.
Even the Sauk siege, often viewed as a historical anomaly, holds ongoing relevance. It was a moment when an armed group attempted to challenge state authority directly by stealing weapons, occupying territory, and issuing threats.
Though quickly resolved, it highlighted the longstanding presence of militant religious ideology on Malaysian soil. What has changed since then is not necessarily the existence of extremism, but the form it takes.

Where once groups like Al-Ma’unah aimed to confront the state head-on, today’s extremists seek to destabilise it through fear, targeting public confidence and social cohesion rather than physical control.
What Malaysia faces now is a difficult paradox. On one hand, failing to respond assertively invites danger. On the other, overreacting through excessive surveillance, targeting specific communities, or politicising national security that can alienate the very groups needed to resist radicalisation.
Terrorism thrives where trust is weak and legitimacy is in doubt. Our task is not just to protect borders or guard buildings, but to inoculate society against division. This means shifting from reactive enforcement to proactive resilience.
Prevention must begin with recognition. The security services need better tools not just to detect threats, but to interpret them in real time. Ideological extremism rarely appears out of nowhere.

It festers in echo chambers, grows in isolation, and thrives where grievances go unanswered. Social services, educators, mental health professionals, and community leaders must become part of the front line in identifying early warning signs. Intelligence must be rooted not only in surveillance, but in social understanding.
The government also needs to communicate more transparently when incidents occur. Conflicting narratives about perpetrators or motives create uncertainty and damage public confidence. We cannot afford reactionary blame or premature assumptions.
A mature national security strategy is one that admits uncertainty, investigates thoroughly, and responds proportionately. In the cases of Movida and Ulu Tiram, hasty mislabelling only heightened fear and confusion, undermining credibility.
Beyond law enforcement, Malaysia must also build a more resilient public narrative. How we remember past attacks matters.

(Image: KARK)Do we remember them as national wounds or moments of collective strength? Do we use them to divide, or to educate and unite?
Commemoration must serve the purpose of resilience not fearmongering. In schools, universities, and public discourse, we must promote inclusive national identity and democratic values that actively reject extremism.
Malaysia is not immune to global trends in radicalisation, nor can it isolate itself from the ideological battles playing out online and in disaffected communities. But it does have a choice in how it responds

The danger lies not only in future attacks, but in the erosion of civil trust and institutional integrity that poorly calibrated responses can cause. A nation that overreaches in fear may win short-term battles, but risks long-term fractures.
To face the current landscape of terrorism, Malaysia must evolve from threat containment to systemic resilience. That means smarter intelligence, integrated prevention, ethical enforcement, and unshakable public unity.
If we fail to learn from Movida, Ulu Tiram, and Sauk not just about the acts themselves, but about the failures in perception, policy, and communication, we risk repeating history under more dangerous circumstances.
Our future security will not be measured by how many attacks we prevent, but by how well we preserve our values in doing so.
R. Paneir Selvam is the principal consultant of Arunachala Research & Consultancy Sdn Bhd, a think tank specialising in strategic national and geopolitical matters.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.
- Focus Malaysia.

---