SHAH ALAM – Abolishing the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) would expose Malaysia to heightened security risks, limiting law enforcement’s ability to take pre-emptive action against potential threats.
Arunachala Research and Consultancy Sdn Bhd principal consultant R. Paneir Selvam said Sosma, similar to the United Kingdom's (UK) Counter-Terrorism Strategy (Contest), was designed to enhance national security by equipping authorities to respond effectively to evolving threats.
"In a similar vein, Sosma equips authorities with the necessary instruments to investigate and mitigate threats before they escalate into actual attacks.
"Abolishing such provisions would expose Malaysia to heightened risks, as law enforcement would possess diminished capacity to undertake pre-emptive actions," he said.
He said while some advocates have called for the abolition of Sosma over human rights concerns, particularly its 28-day detention without trial, such arguments often neglect the crucial role of comprehensive counter-terrorism laws in safeguarding national security.
Growing terrorism threats
Paneir said the recent attack in Mulhouse, France where a 37-year-old Algerian man killed a bystander and wounded three police officers highlighted the ongoing and ever-changing threat of global terrorism.
"The recent incident in France, along with the continuous threat of terrorism in the UK, United States (US) and Singapore, highlighted the importance of preventive legislation like Sosma in protecting citizens and upholding public safety," he added.
Citing the UK as an example, he pointed out that the country implemented the Contest strategy following major incidents like the 7/7 London bombings in 2005.
This approach, he said prioritised early detection, disruption and prevention, recognising that terrorism does not arise in isolation but require proactive intervention.
He said given Malaysia’s own security challenges, maintaining robust laws like Sosma was essential to prevent extremist activities from escalating.
"Sosma, akin to UK's Contest strategy, is structured to empower Malaysia’s security forces to adeptly address emerging threats.
"The legislation permits the detention of individuals suspected of terrorism-related activities for a maximum of 28 days without trial, while simultaneously instituting judicial oversight to maintain checks and balances," he said.
Paneir pointed out that terrorism does not wait for due process and can strike unexpectedly, leading to catastrophic consequences and therefore, preventive measures, though stringent were necessary to protect the public.
He said countries with strong counter-terrorism laws have demonstrated their effectiveness in preventing attacks.
The US, he said for example, implemented the Patriot Act following the 9/11 attacks, granting security agencies extensive surveillance and investigative powers.
He said despite the controversy, the legislation has been vital in preventing numerous threats, much like Singapore’s Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for preventive detention and surveillance to curb extremist activities before they unfold.
The necessity of Sosma
Paneir argued that calls to abolish Sosma could leave Malaysia defenceless against preventable security threats.
He said historical evidence from countries with strong counter-terrorism laws suggested that such frameworks were not solely reactive but primarily preventive.
"While it is crucial to reform Sosma to prevent its misuse, a total repeal would be imprudent," he said.
He added that the primary objective of Sosma was to strike a balance between safeguarding national security and upholding civil liberties.
While oversight mechanisms should be in place to prevent abuse, Paneir said the broader goal of ensuring public safety must take precedence over concerns regarding temporary restrictions on individual freedoms.
Global precedents in counter-terrorism
Paneir highlighted that France’s counter-terrorism measures have evolved significantly since the extremist attacks of 2015 and 2016, during which the country imposed a state of emergency, granting security forces broader powers.
Although the emergency status was later lifted, he noted that France continued to enforce stringent anti-terrorism laws to counter emerging threats, with the recent Mulhouse attack reaffirming their necessity.
He also pointed out that UK’s Contest framework prioritised disrupting terrorist plots before they unfold, ensuring security agencies remained ahead of potential threats.
This proactive approach, he said, has been instrumental in preventing multiple attacks over the years.
Similarly, Paneir said Singapore’s ISA exemplified a preventive counter-terrorism strategy, allowing authorities to detain and monitor individuals suspected of extremist activities.
This, he explained, played a crucial role in preventing radicalisation and terrorist attacks before they occur, contributing significantly to the nation’s security.
As other countries reinforced their counter-terrorism laws, he said Malaysia must do the same by retaining Sosma.
He acknowledged human rights concerns but argued that national security must come first, warning that abolishing Sosma would significantly weaken Malaysia’s ability to combat terrorism.
He stressed the importance of strong counter-terrorism laws in protecting public safety and urged Malaysia to maintain similar measures for a more secure future.
Debate over Sosma
Sosma was enacted in 2012 to replace the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) and provides special measures for handling security offences.
While its primary objective is to maintain public order, its detention provisions have been met with criticisms from human rights groups and legal advocates.
In February, it was reported that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim directed Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution to review and "improve" Sosma.
It was reported that Human rights group Suara Rakyat Malaysia has called for the 28-day detention period granted under Sosma to be abolished without delay.
Its executive director Sevan Doraisamy, while welcoming Anwar's directive for a review and reassessment of the security Act, said the government must also amend Section 13(1) of the Act, which restricts bail application rights.