Valid reasons to keep security laws
PANEIR Selvam’s letter “Security laws vital against terror threats” ( The Star, Nov 19) is a timely reminder on the subject of national security. He argues that we must retain our security laws. Is he right?
The reason why the ISA and Police Act were abolished was because the former government responded to populist sentiments that claimed these laws had been abused. The Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) and Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota) were introduced as their replacement.
The slogan of the American Rifles Association (ARA) says “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This is true. Having laws like the ISA, Police Act, Sosma and Pota is not the cause of people being abused or treated unfairly. It is the misuse of these laws by the people behind the law that leads to abuse and unfair treatment.
Is retaining the current security laws, namely Sosma and Pota, really necessary? Let us look back for lessons in history to determine our answer.
Sept 11, 2001 was a shock not only for the United States but also for the whole world, which watched in disbelief and horror the destruction in New York and Washington after the terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda. The US was held hostage to fear and confusion by an act of terrorism. Massive destruction was caused without using a conventional weapon of mass destruction.
Sept 11 was carried out by just a few misguided religious fanatics who were willing to die for their beliefs and their cause. It is not important why these people did what they did. What is important is that such a thing happened and could happen again to any other country. What is important also is to analyse how each country can prevent such a thing from happening.
Malaysia has faced terrorism before during the communist insurgency. This was at a time when TV and mass communication was not as easily available as today but those of us who lived through those years remember many gruesome episodes.
Out of this period of turmoil and chaos came the ISA in Singapore and Malaysia. It was created by the British government even though Britain itself was a cradle of democracy.
The ISA stayed in both Singapore and Malaysia after the communist insurgents were defeated. The ISA stayed because the fear of terrorism in other forms continued to haunt both countries.
In spite of these laws, Malaysia grew and prospered as a democracy. We had a great deal of freedom – freedom to choose how and where to work, how to trade, worship, travel and even to go abroad to study.
And we had the choice of the type of government we wanted. In spite of these laws, Malaysia has been a great country to live in and to die for.
But there will always be people who want to change all that – to force their political and particularly their religious beliefs on the country.
With globalisation, this can be done across borders. But organised terrorism cannot function without links within or without the country.
Terrorists need money, telecommunications, transport and logistics. They may need organisations around the world to inspire or support them. All this creates possible information leaks. To access this information, we need to beef up our surveillance and intelligence capabilities.
We need to beef up, modernise and adequately fund our police force and especially the Special Branch, our intelligence agency that helped us survive and succeed through the communist insurgency. They need to be strongly supported and empowered.
What produces a great deal of heat and debate is the apparent competing ways of handling suspects of terrorism.
The first way is law enforcement. This method requires it to be used only after an act has been committed.
It uses information that is legally and voluntarily obtained. It is governed by restrictions and rules towards private citizens. This method is slow and may be too late.
The second method is one of preventive detention and the acceptance of a loose standard for evidence. The constraints of law enforcement must logically yield to the imperatives of national security where preventive detention is required. Herein lies the need for security laws.
In a democracy such as Malaysia, it is important that these measures taken in the interest of national security will not trample upon the guarantees given in our Constitution.
But there are times when freedom has to be defended by more than fine words and phrases contained in any constitution.
In the interest of national security, the people must make some small sacrifices. Abuse of the law can happen but the chances of that happening can and should be controlled. It requires the will of an honest government.
The United Kingdom, France and Belgium have realised this. They have drawn up new laws for surveillance and detention. The US also has its Patriot Act.
All these countries and others are studying how such laws can be enhanced so that the security of their citizens and country can be protected.
Panier Selvam is right. Security laws such as Sosma and Pota are necessary. Those who do not agree should revisit Sept 11 and watch the scenes of destruction and helplessness that occurred that day.