Retaining preventive laws still the best option

Abolishing the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota) may not be a wise move yet for the country as the threats from crime, violence, gangsterism and terrorism are still there.

In reality, in most cases, the country and the world in general cannot, in a straightforward manner, contain threats such as terrorism and internationally linked crimes.

These Acts thus are still necessary to eliminate these potential threats through preventive laws. Strict laws should still be enforced in the country to ensure public order, race relations and national security in general.

Measures can always be taken by a responsible government to ensure that these laws are not abused. The public has to be assured that these laws are limited to cases that threaten national security and are not used intimidatingly as political tools to silence critics. In all probability, the actual purpose of these laws is misunderstood. Some may fear that politicians use these laws maliciously and to injudiciously detain their political opponents or whistle-blowers for their political expediency and vested interests.

Though there could be some truth in this before the dawn of New Malaysia, it does not cross their mind that these laws are only preventive in nature. Combating crime, violence and terrorism in any nation is a necessity, but safeguards must be put in place to ensure that the laws are not abused by the government and the security personnel.

The purpose of these Acts is misunderstood

Thus far, as reported, more than 2,000 people have been detained under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), 475 under the Prevention of Crime (Amendment) Act 2015 (Poca) and nine under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota) in the country.

In fact there are Acts similar to Pota in other countries too, such as the US’s Patriot Act, Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act and UK’s own Prevention of Terrorism Act. The perception in those countries is the same and these Acts have become controversial for the same reason that they give too much authoritative power to certain bodies.

Many politicians, lawyers and NGOs have the tendency to exploit this issue and give the impression that they are draconian laws, thus further befuddling the people. Let the government and those handling the security of the nation do the talking as to why the country still needs such laws. The rationale for having such laws is best relayed to the public by them, and not by practising lawyers and the NGOs.

The government has to take responsibility for any untoward incident. Therefore, every decision or act of the government should be based on feedback from security personnel, not the lawyers and NGOs out there. Security personnel are seen as neutral parties as they are responsible for the nation’s security. Sloppy laws on crime and terrorism will only burden the security personnel who are the first to bear the brunt of incidents caused by irresponsible elements out to ruin the country.

The people have seen atrocious events such as death threats, religious extremism, and bomb blasts by terrorist-linked groups in many neighbouring countries, and they hope this will not happen in this country.

I have read of studies that show the country can be used as a base for illegal activities, criminal networking and terrorism. This can involve religious plots to create disharmony, human trafficking, smuggling of drugs and weapons, gangsterism and many other serious crimes.

The police just cannot handle problems plaguing the nation by always going to the court of law. Moreover, many of these offences are not easy to trace because they involve secretive local and international syndicates. In most cases, they have to be apprehended at the planning stage – and this is the reason why these Acts are referred to as preventive laws.

The police should be given the right to intercept any form of communication and present them in court as evidence. This includes electronic messages such as those found in the social media, phone calls and those in print. Witness identities must be protected for security reasons and cannot be overtly laid bare. Again, witnesses may refuse to testify in court despite being given the assurance that their identities will be protected for security reasons. Our justice system no doubt looks for clear evidence from witnesses in court. However, in most security cases, the statements obtained from witnesses are based on intelligence and this cannot be explicitly exposed in court.

National security is more important than pandering to advocates who feel that these preventive laws have infringed human rights. Some lawyers and NGOs at times are not looking from the governmental and security perspective. They may feel injustice is being done when they see people being detained as they are only looking at it from an ideal legal perspective. To a lawyer, no doubt, each case has to be decided in the court of law based on indisputable evidence.

Unfortunately, there are many cases involving serious matters detrimental to the nation’s safety that cannot be brought to the court of law. In some cases, obtaining legally binding evidence, as expected by the lawyers and the court, on planned illegal activities may not be as simple as most ordinary people think. Failing to meet this quintessence of legal professionalism, suspects will then be freed and there have been cases where these suspects return to their old tricks and trade, impairing society and burdening the security forces more.

Prevention is always better than cure. Any decision to repeal or amend these laws must be based on long-term benefits to the nation and based on dependable advice from the security personnel. The interest of the nation must be foremost in any political decision made, as national security cannot be compromised.

Moaz Nair is an FMT reader.