TERROR: HOW NECESSARY ARE OUR LAWS?
Security laws cannot guarantee zero terrorism but their absence can have grave consequences for the country
WHEN I was down in Kuala Lumpur last weekend, a journalist asked me whether we would have adequate laws left to fight terrorism if the government goes ahead with the plan to repeal some of the security legislation. I asked her to give me time to think and promised to respond later by email.
We have at present several antiterrorism laws, including (in no particular order) the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (POTA), the Special Measures against Terrorism in Foreign Countries 2015 (SMATA), and the National Security Council Act 2016 (NSCA). In earlier times, we had the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA), Penal Code and the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA). Both POCA and the Penal Code were recently revamped.
Under the revamped Penal Code, a new Part VIA (offences relating to terrorism) had been added, containing Sections 130C to 130M (suppression of terrorist act and support for terrorist act), and 130N to 130TA (suppression of financing to terrorist acts).
The term “terrorist” is defined in Section 130B to mean any person who:
(a) commits, or attempts to commit any “terrorist act”; or,
(b) participates in or facilitates the commission of any “terrorist act”.
The term “terrorist act” is defined in the same section to mean an act or threat of action within or beyond Malaysia, made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, and intended to intimidate the public or influence or compel the government to do or refrain from doing any act, that involves serious bodily injury to a person or serious damage to property, endangers a person’s life, prejudice to national security or public safety, or intimidate the public or a section of the public.
POTA came into force on Sept 1, 2015. Many believed it was enacted as an immediate response to the Islamic State (IS) menace. SMATA was enacted to empower the Immigration Department to suspend or cancel the travelling documents of any Malaysian involved in foreign terrorist organisations.
Rejecting POTA, Malaysian Bar Council president Steven Thiru believed that instead of combating terrorism, the new law may in fact radicalise more people.
On the global front, Malaysia had implemented United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2178. The former required Malaysia, as a member state, to suppress the flow of foreign fighters, financing and other support to Islamist extremist groups. The latter requires Malaysia to impose travel bans, exchange information, identify foreign terrorist fighters and prevent radicalisation and recruitment.
Malaysia had joined the Global Coalition to Counter Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), established to fight the Daesh threat. It also became a member of the Financial Action Task Force, established in 1989 to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.
The question that comes to my mind is if Malaysia had not enacted the anti-terrorism laws and taken action on the global front as described above, could similar terrorism incidents described below occur here?
security guard killed 49 people and injured 53 others in an attack inside a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, on June 12, 2016. He was later killed by the police after a three-hour standoff. It was the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in US history.
Tunisian national drove a 20-tonne rental truck into a crowd in Nice, France, on July 14, 2016, killing 86 people; French officials said he was radicalised by IS propaganda.
student carried out a car and knife attack at a Ohio State university on Nov 28, 2016, injuring 11 people; police believed he was inspired by a radical IS cleric.
national drove a tractor trailer into a market in Berlin on Dec 19, 2016, killing 12 people; German authorities conducted a manhunt for him across Europe; he was subsequently shot and killed by police in Milan, Italy.
drove a vehicle into a crowd on the sidewalk along the Westminster Bridge in London on March 22, 2017, killing four people.
driving a van rammed into a crowd of pedestrians on London Bridge on June 3, 2017, killing eight people. He then walked to nearby Borough Market, where he slashed people in restaurants and bars, injuring 48 people.
plowed into a crowd in a tourist district in Barcelona, Spain, on Aug 17, 2017, killing 13 people and injuring 100 others. Two suspects were arrested, but the driver managed to escape. ISIS later claimed responsibility for the attack.
man drove a rented pickup truck down a busy bicycle path near the World Trade Centre, New York, on Oct 31, 2017 killing eight people and injuring many others.
The brutal slaying of a Palestinian academic in Setapak, Kuala Lumpur, made it abundantly clear that despite all our laws, “terrorism” is still close at hand. In that violent incident on April 23 this year, Fadi Mohammad alBatsh was assassinated by two gunmen.
The assassins fired 20 times, with 14 shots hitting the victim as he was heading to a mosque for dawn prayers. Police later described the killers as having distinct European or Middle Eastern features. Fadi had lived in Malaysia for seven years, teaching at a local university.
To sum up, whilst our security laws cannot guarantee zero terrorism incidents in this country, our security forces believe their absence may probably lead to an increase in their frequency and gravity — a spectacle we certainly do not wish to see.
The brutal slaying of a Palestinian academic in Setapak, Kuala Lumpur, made it abundantly clear that despite all our laws, ‘terrorism’ is still close at hand.
The writer formerly served the Attorney-General’s Chambers before he left for private practice, the corporate sector and academia