From strategy to action: Making Malaysia’s counter-terrorism framework work

 

MALAYSIA does not need to replicate India’s counter-terrorism institutions to learn from its experience.

India’s PRAHAAR, launched in February 2026 as its first comprehensive National Counter-Terrorism Policy and Strategy, raises a more practical question: how can Malaysia strengthen the implementation of its own security framework?

The Malaysia Action Plan on Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (MyPCVE) 2024–2028 already provides a national framework built around four pillars: prevention, enforcement, rehabilitation and reinforcement.

It calls for coordinated action by government agencies, civil society and other stakeholders. The priority now is to translate these commitments into measurable results.

Five measures could help achieve this.

First, Malaysia should conduct a whole-of-government coordination audit. The Royal Malaysia Police, intelligence agencies, Bank Negara Malaysia, the National Anti-Financial Crime Centre, immigration authorities and cybersecurity agencies have distinct responsibilities that can overlap in complex investigations.

The government should assess how quickly information is shared, whether responsibilities are clearly defined and where investigative delays occur.

(Image: STR/AFP/Getty Images)

Common operating procedures, secure information-sharing protocols and joint threat assessments could improve coordination. New institutions should be considered only where evidence demonstrates a genuine need.

Second, counter-terrorism legislation should be reviewed for clarity, effectiveness and safeguards. The Penal Code, Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 and Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 should be assessed for operational gaps, overlapping provisions and implementation challenges.

Stronger laws do not automatically produce better outcomes. Amendments should address demonstrated shortcomings rather than respond reflexively to individual incidents.

Parliamentary scrutiny, judicial oversight and access to legal remedies must remain meaningful, while security measures should target credible threats without criminalising lawful political expression or religious activity.

Third, Malaysia should strengthen its capacity to disrupt terrorist financing and digital networks. Investigators need to trace suspicious transactions, examine cross-border transfers and preserve digital evidence within clear legal boundaries.

Financial institutions, regulators and enforcement agencies should improve cooperation in identifying transactions that warrant investigation, particularly where terrorist financing intersects with money laundering or organised crime.

Digital investigations should also address online recruitment and extremist propaganda without treating ordinary political discussion or religious practice as evidence of criminal conduct.

Fourth, MyPCVE’s prevention and rehabilitation pillars need measurable performance indicators. Prevention should combine public awareness, appropriate early intervention and cooperation with credible community organisations.

Rehabilitation should support disengagement from violent extremism, personal development and reintegration into society.

Educators, psychologists, social workers and enforcement agencies can contribute complementary expertise.

Programmes should be evaluated through indicators such as sustained participation in support services, successful reintegration and reduced reoffending where reliable data are available.

Assessments must also consider unintended consequences, including community stigmatisation.

MyPCVE’s fourth pillar, reinforcement, deserves equal attention. It focuses on strengthening national identity and character through education and socialisation, particularly during childhood and youth.

Properly implemented, it can support social resilience and respect for Malaysia’s diverse communities. It must not become a mechanism for labelling lawful political, cultural or religious differences as extremism.

Fifth, Malaysia should institutionalise independent evaluation and public accountability.

Annual assessments could report, subject to legitimate security restrictions, on threat trends, prosecutions, financial investigations, prevention initiatives and rehabilitation outcomes.

Parliamentary scrutiny should examine whether public resources are being used effectively and whether identified weaknesses are addressed.

(Image: Bernama)

Implementation should proceed in phases. The first should review existing laws, institutions, programmes and coordination procedures.

The second should establish common protocols, specialised training and measurable indicators aligned with MyPCVE’s four pillars. Subsequent reviews should assign responsibility for corrective action and publish progress where appropriate.

Regional cooperation must complement domestic reforms. Terrorist financing, online recruitment and digital evidence can cross borders rapidly.

Malaysia should strengthen information-sharing, mutual legal assistance and cooperation with regional partners while respecting applicable legal safeguards.

India’s PRAHAAR offers useful strategic lessons, but Malaysia should measure progress against MyPCVE’s objectives, not simply the number of laws enacted, arrests made or programmes announced.

More meaningful indicators include timely identification of credible threats, disruption of support networks, fair prosecutions and demonstrable progress in prevention and rehabilitation.

Ultimately, MyPCVE provides Malaysia with an existing foundation. The task is to connect its four pillars through effective coordination, transparent evaluation and accountable enforcement.

National security and the rule of law should reinforce each other. A strategy that prevents violence while sustaining public trust is more likely to remain effective over the long term. 

R Paneir Selvam is principal consultant at Arunachala Research & Consultancy Sdn Bhd (ARRESCON), a think tank specialising in strategic national and geopolitical analysis.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT

- Focus Malaysia.

Your journey is someone else’s data: Malaysia’s push for digital sovereignty

 

TO the average commuter, a navigation app is simply a convenience, a digital co-pilot that helps dodge morning traffic jams and speed traps.

But when a government moves to restrict civil servants from using a platform like Waze, it highlights a fundamental reality of the 21st century: geospatial data is no longer just traffic information. It can also be strategic intelligence.

The government’s recent directive prohibits civil servants from using Waze while carrying out official duties, citing cybersecurity and data protection concerns.

The decision has sparked debate over whether the restriction is a necessary precaution or an unnecessary complication for a routine commuting tool.

Yet dismissing the policy as an inconvenience overlooks the broader national security question.

Navigation apps can collect information such as users’ locations, journeys and movement patterns.

When aggregated, such data could potentially reveal patterns of activity around government offices, critical infrastructure and other sensitive locations. In an era when data is a geopolitical asset, protecting public-sector information is a legitimate security consideration.

However, identifying a potential risk is not the same as demonstrating that it has been exploited.

Waze has rejected claims that it collects sensitive government information or allows users’ data to be misused, saying it operates under privacy policies and international data protection standards.

The challenge, therefore, is to assess the actual risks and determine whether the measures taken are proportionate to them.

A security policy is only as effective as its implementation. Restricting a deeply embedded, crowdsourced navigation app also raises practical questions about how public servants will travel efficiently while carrying out their duties.

For more than a decade, Waze has relied on information contributed by road users to provide real-time traffic updates and routing suggestions.

Moving away from an established platform inevitably creates friction, particularly if the alternatives cannot match its coverage, accuracy and responsiveness.

This is where the policy’s real test, and its biggest opportunity, lies.

The government has encouraged the use of TuJu, a local navigation app developed by the Malaysian Highway Authority in collaboration with Prosignal Consortium Sdn Bhd.

However, TuJu experienced technical disruptions following a surge in users after the recommendation, prompting its developers to work on improving system stability, route accuracy and the overall user experience.

These challenges underline an important point: a homegrown digital solution must be more than a patriotic alternative. It must be reliable, intuitive, accurate and capable of handling demand.

Users will not trust a platform simply because it is locally developed. They need it to work when they need it.

That requires robust privacy safeguards, transparent data governance and sustained investment in infrastructure. It also requires a critical mass of active users to support useful, timely traffic information.

Sovereign technology cannot survive on national duty alone. It must earn users’ confidence through performance.

The restriction should therefore be viewed not merely as an app prohibition, but as an opportunity to reconsider how Malaysia manages its digital footprint.

True cyber-resilience is not achieved simply by switching off foreign platforms. It requires building secure, competitive alternatives and establishing clear standards for how location data is collected, stored, accessed and protected.

This also means being precise about the policy’s scope. The restriction applies to civil servants conducting official government business, not to the public at large.

Digital Minister Gobind Singh Deo has also clarified that civil servants are not limited to TuJu and may use other navigation applications, including Google Maps, for official duties.

Such distinctions matter. Public trust is strengthened when security measures are clearly explained, supported by evidence and accompanied by practical alternatives.

If the directive becomes a catalyst for serious investment in local software and stronger data governance, short-term adjustments could yield long-term benefits.

But the goal should not be to replace one app with another merely to satisfy a directive. It should be to create a digital ecosystem that can protect sensitive information without compromising everyday utility.

Knowing how to navigate our roads is important. Understanding who holds our journey data, how it may be used and what safeguards protect it is just as essential. 

The author, Suarnamughy Maran is an English Language Lecturer at the Centre of Foundation Studies, Universiti Malaya (PASUM).

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT

- Focus Malaysia.

Malaysia’s bullying crisis: Punishment alone won’t fix a culture of superiority

 

WHEN a child humiliates, threatens or assaults another, we condemn the perpetrator, counsel the victim and often attribute the incident to poor discipline or mental health.

But when bullying persists, we must ask a harder question: are we treating the symptoms while ignoring the attitudes and institutional failures that allow such behaviour to flourish?

Malaysia’s bullying figures demand attention. The Education Ministry recorded 6,528 cases in 2023 and 7,681 in 2024, before the figure fell to 2,889 in 2025.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim told the Dewan Rakyat on Oct 6 that 5,681 cases had been reported between January and August 2026. He warned that the actual number could be higher because some cases may go unreported to protect schools’ reputations.

The figures are not directly comparable because they cover different periods, and changes in reporting may affect the totals. Nevertheless, they demand more than another round of awareness campaigns.

Bullying cannot simply be explained as a mental health problem. A 2021 study involving 4,469 Malaysian public secondary school students found associations between bullying involvement and several individual, peer and school factors, including psychological distress and conflict with peers. However, its cross-sectional design cannot establish cause and effect.

Some children struggle with emotional regulation, while others learn aggression from their surroundings or use physical strength, popularity and social influence to dominate classmates.

(Image: Adobe Stock)

Victims, meanwhile, may develop anxiety and other psychological difficulties because of their experiences. Counselling is essential where needed, but it cannot replace accountability, discipline and empathy.

We must also confront an uncomfortable question: can racial and religious superiority contribute to bullying in Malaysia?

Prejudice is not the explanation for every incident, but it should not be dismissed as a possible motive.

A 2023 systematic review by Maria Sapouna, Leyla de Amicis and Loris Vezzali examined 73 studies on bullying linked to race, ethnicity, citizenship and religion.

It found that negative stereotypes and discrimination in schools and communities were associated with greater risks of racist bullying victimisation among minority, immigrant and refugee young people.

The findings do not establish the prevalence of such bullying in Malaysia, but they underline why prejudice deserves attention.

There is a difference between disliking someone and believing that a person is inherently inferior because of race, religion or background. The latter creates a hierarchy of human worth, allowing exclusion and humiliation to be rationalised as justified.

In a multicultural country such as Malaysia, children may absorb these attitudes when adults disparage other ethnic communities, ridicule different religions or imply that certain groups deserve less respect.

Religious teachings lose their purpose when identity becomes an excuse for contempt. Patriotism rings hollow when national unity is preached while prejudice is tolerated.

The question is not whether any particular race or religion produces bullies. It is whether any ideology of superiority teaches people that others deserve less dignity.

Bullying also reflects how society understands power. Children observe how adults resolve disagreements. When they see powerful individuals humiliating opponents or escaping consequences, they may learn that dominance works better than dialogue.

At home, parents may reinforce aggression by excusing their children’s misconduct or blaming victims. At school, bullying can become entrenched when complaints are dismissed as ordinary childhood behaviour or disciplinary action is inconsistent.

Peer pressure compounds the problem: some students join in to gain popularity, while others remain silent out of fear.

Social media can intensify the harm. Humiliating videos, abusive messages and threats follow victims beyond school grounds, while online attention can reward perpetrators and prolong a victim’s humiliation.

Malaysia needs a comprehensive response. Schools must investigate complaints impartially, protect victims and witnesses, and impose proportionate consequences when misconduct is established.

Parents must reinforce empathy and responsibility, while students need confidential reporting channels and protection against retaliation.

(Image: Shutterstock)

Education authorities should monitor repeat offences, the quality of investigations and whether students feel safe reporting abuse. They must also distinguish a rise in recorded cases from a rise in actual incidents, since stronger reporting systems may initially produce higher totals.

Most importantly, moral education must move beyond memorising principles. Children need to practise respect for differences and understand that strength carries responsibility, not permission to dominate.

Malaysia often speaks of national unity, religious values and good citizenship. These ideals must be tested against everyday conduct.

Punishment without addressing the environment that rewards aggression will have limited impact. Counselling without confronting prejudice leaves another possible cause untouched. Preaching tolerance without enforcing rules sends contradictory messages.

The true measure of a civilised society is not how it treats the powerful, the popular or the majority, but how consistently it protects those who are vulnerable, different or unable to defend themselves.

Malaysia’s response to bullying must begin with that principle. Anything less risks treating visible symptoms while allowing intolerance, impunity and indifference to take deeper root. 

KT Maran is a Focus Malaysia reader.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT

- Focus Malaysia.