THE spate of crime and terrorist attacks in Sabah and detention of Islamic State terrorists have some quarters calling for the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) to be re-introduced. Rather than bringing back the ISA, the government should enact new security laws with elements that are missing in the current legislation to prevent such problems.
Perhaps the government can study the security legislation of the United Kingdom and draft new security legislation rather than bring back a repealed legislation.
Among the security legislation are:
TERRORISM Act 2000 (UK) — This widens the definition of terrorism to apply to domestic terrorism and includes any “political, religious or ideological” cause that uses or threatens violence against people or property, creates new offences of inciting terrorism, increases police powers, including stop and search and pre-charge detention for seven days, and outlaws terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda.
This definition is suitable for Malaysia to maintain its homeland security and to ensure that security and enforcement agencies have wider powers to maintain peace and order;
ANTI-TERRORISM, Crime and Security Act 2001 — This empowers the home secretary to indefinitely detain, without charge or trial, foreign nationals who are suspected of terrorism, even though there are amendments that extend to the executive powers for the freezing bank accounts and assets. Although detention without trial can be considered as a breach of fundamental rights but security and enforcement agencies have a paramount duty to protect society;
PREVENTION of Terrorism Act 2000 — This allows the government to restrict the activities of individuals it suspects of “involvement in terrorist-related activity”, but for whom there is insufficient evidence to charge;
TERRORISM Act 2006 — This extends the pre-charge detention period from 14 to 28 days (the Criminal Justice Act 2003 had increased it from seven to 14 days) and introduces a prohibition on the glorification of terrorism.
This allows persons whom the authorities have no evidence of their terrorist activities or, in the case of Malaysia, hardcore criminals and known troublemakers with insufficient evidence, to be charged in the courts.
Although Malaysia’s Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 does have similar measures, this can be considered as an additional measure to strengthen the security and enforcement agencies; and,
COUNTER-TERRORISM Act 2008 — This enables post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects, allows the police to take fingerprints and DNA samples from individuals subject to control orders, and amends the definition of terrorism by inserting a racial clause.
Generally, these acts of parliament in the UK have ever-expanding definitions of terrorism, the increase pre-charge detention periods, the control order regime and increasing use of closed tribunal proceedings, the widespread use of stop-and- search powers, the limitation of the right to protest, and issues of state terrorism and the right to rebel.
There are surveys in the UK that state that the public are increasingly willing to give up their civil liberties in the name of counter-terrorism.
Of course, we can expect some conflict between security legislation and human rights. That’s because by its very nature, the legislation restricts freedom, rights and, in some cases, liberty. Therefore, it is impossible to have a legislation to tackle security issues and crime alone.
The government needs to update the legislation if there is any need or enact new laws to accomplish the required necessities. This legislation must comply with the requirements of Part 2 of the Federal Constitution.
The ISA had its purpose. That purpose was fulfilled when the Communist Party of Malaya laid down its arms. It is improper to bring back an act that is repealed.
In a nutshell, the government cannot create a single comprehensive security law because the requirements are always changing.
It needs to be progressive and innovative by creating various legislation to tackle security issues and crime.
R. Paneir Selvam, Institute of Crime and Criminology, HELP University, Kuala Lumpur