Foolish to repeal ISA, says anti-terror expert

Singapore-based Rohan Gunaratna says Malaysia is removing its best law to prevent terrorism at a time when the threat is spreading.

PETALING JAYA: A Singapore-based counter-terrorism expert has admonished Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak for choosing popularity over security in his decision to abolish the Internal Security Act (ISA).

Rohan Gunaratna, who heads the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University, sees the decision as colliding head-on with Malaysia’s long-term national and strategic interest.

The centre, which conducts counter-terrrorism research and training, is one of the largest of its kind in the world.

In Gunaratna’s opinion, terrorism is still a potent threat to the world. He said there had not been a significant decline or even a plateau in terrorist threats since the 9/11 attacks on New York.

While he agreed that the immediate tactical threat had been reduced, he said the long-term strategic threat still existed.

“More Muslims have been radicalised and more extremist groups have emerged in the last decade,” he told FMT.

“The only reason Malaysia hasn’t suffered a terrorist attack so far is because the ISA was an invaluable protective tool. The other reason is because its Special Branch admirably prevented a number of plans both to strike Malaysia and to use it as a regional base.”

But this could change with the ISA’s repeal, he said.

He warned that the future of Malaysia’s security hinged on the government’s ability to preventively detain terrorist suspects, confine those suspected of advocating terrorism and ensure their rehabilitation.

He said this could prove to be challenging without the ISA because producing terrorist suspects in court would generate publicity and tip off the terrorist network.

“The Malaysian authorities will then struggle to disrupt this network.”.

Malaysians have given Najib’s decision a tentative nod, reserving their full approval until the two laws meant to replace the ISA are explained. Some have speculated that the new laws could be worse. If so Malaysia would be walking down the same path taken by India, which repealed the discredited Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 (POTA) only to replace it with the National Investigation Agency Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act.

Indian civil liberties activists have criticised the latter laws as more draconian than the POTA.

Foolish to go the other way

Gunaratna doubts that the new Malaysian laws will be more restrictive than the ISA, basing his scepticism on the widespread belief that Najib’s decision was politically motivated.

“And once the ISA is abolished, it will be difficult to reintroduce such laws in Malaysia again,” he said.

“The ISA was previously heavily criticised by the West, but the US itself enforced the Patriot Act in October 2001. So at the time when the West is emulating and developing laws similar to the ISA, it is foolish of Malaysian leaders to go the other way.”

He said what Malaysia needed was a vibrant debate on the ISA—and not by civil society, but by a team of its best security minds.

“It appears to me that if the public were well informed of the terrorism threat, they would want the ISA to remain, but for it to not be abused for political and personal reasons.

“At a time when Malaysia and the entire region are under threat, abolishing the ISA is like going to battle without body armour.”

Gunaratna’s stand was strongly contested by former Bar Council chairperson S Ambiga, who said the ISA was never a good law.

“I can understand the need for an anti-terrorism law,” she said, “but there are already provisions under the Penal Code and any preventive detention laws cannot be good.”

Checking the political agenda

She also expressed reservations about the proposal to replace the ISA with new laws. “Ultimately, the acceptability of the new laws will boil down to the integrity of the people who will administer them. The new laws are said to be only terrorist-related, but if the Home Minister is left to decide who is a terrorist, then even I could be defined as one.”

She also called for the new laws to provide for judicial oversights and shorter detention periods.

“It is absolutely critical that the judiciary be left to oversee this,” she stressed. “There cannot be any law without the judiciary being given a right of scrutiny, and of course this presupposes an independent judiciary.”

Human rights lawyer Haris Ibrahim said that the problem with the ISA was not the law itself, but its abuse.

“The new laws must therefore include the strongest check and balance against such abuse,” he said.

“They must have very restrictive pre-emptive powers in terms of time frame and the executor of power. Currently this is the Home Minister. If the power could be exercised by three Cabinet ministers instead, that would cut down the question of whether one man is on an agenda and remove any shadow of doubt over the decision.”