Why Sosma should not be repealed

Crime and terrorism, wherever they may be found and whoever is involved, must be nipped in the bud before they can thrive. The police, who are assigned to safeguard the country’s security, must be given the power to enforce laws to curtail these threats.

There are those who threaten the safety of the nation by joining terror groups. They could also be part of criminal syndicates. I believe right-minded citizens would have no problem supporting the government’s decision to retain the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma).

Sosma was created under Article 149 of the Federal Constitution to thwart internal security issues, including acts of terrorism, sabotage and espionage.

Terror activities are spilling over and posing high risks to many countries. Without effective preventive laws, criminals and terrorists will be free from the law which will be a threat to the country. The country should not wait for a tragedy to happen before the government creates laws to overcome these threats.

Lawyers and activists may criticise the government for not repealing these laws. But they are not the groups responsible for the nation’s security. In reality, this preventive law is only to rein in the wayward activities of a very small fraction of the country’s population of 32 million who are capable of creating disorder in the nation. The police, on their part, cannot simply make arbitrary arrests or detain people under Sosma without hard evidence or thorough investigation.

Sosma has always been viewed with contempt by human rights groups. It has been criticised since it came into force, with its opponents calling it a draconian legislation as it provides for prolonged detention. Some even say it has been used as a political tool to stifle dissent in the country.

They also feel that to detain an alleged offender for 28 days without trial and depriving them of lawyers is injustice, as at the end of the day the offender may not be found guilty in a court of law.

However, while the concepts of rights, freedom and free speech are universally accepted as the foundation of democratic societies and accepted by all democratic nations of the world, such rights and freedoms are not without limit. Sosma is needed only for preventive reasons, and it is not to be politically abused to suppress dissenting voices or government critics.

The security of the country and its people should not be taken lightly. The country has thus far managed to handle terrorism. Praise be to the police who have conducted themselves proactively and professionally in rooting out such activities to prevent the acts of horror that other countries have gone through.

The government has the responsibility to ensure social, economic and political stability. It’s the security of the nation that determines its survival. The government thus has the ultimate responsibility to protect the nation from undesirable elements. Even developed countries such as the US and UK possess similar laws and safeguards.

This law has to be defended, although some amendments may be needed. If amendments are to be made to this act, they should be carefully crafted based on current and future security needs. Certain provisions in the act can be amended, such as the provision relating to the lack of access to lawyers. Detainees should not be denied access to lawyers as they would be able to assess their clients’ physical or mental conditions while under detention. At least this would give some respite to the detainees’ family members.

The law, on the whole, has to be enforced fully by the police and other enforcement agencies to ensure that crimes and terrorism are curtailed. To date, the police have done a praiseworthy job in preventing major terror attacks in the country. Politicians, lawyers, NGOs and human rights groups should not be working against the police at the expense of the country’s security.

Moaz Nair is an FMT reader.