An Overview of the Rule of Law Values Within Malaysia's Anti-Terror Law: A Legal Perspective from India and the United Kingdom

Authors

  • Ho Peng Kwang University of Malaya, Malaysia
  • Johan Shamsuddin Sabaruddin University of Malaya, Malaysia
  • Saroja Dhanapal University of Malaya, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2017.8.3

Keywords:

Rule of Law, Terrorism, National security, Preventive detention, POTA 2015

Abstract

Abstract: Changes in the legislative framework in response to terrorist threats in Malaysia, India and the United Kingdom since the 9/11 attacks have witnessed the integration of national security issues and criminal justice to form part of the extraordinary security laws passed by the authorities. This integration has rested on the premise that terrorism is an unprecedented threat and so it requires legislation tailored to what has been called as a ‘new paradigm in prevention. The criminal law has largely, though not exclusively, focused only on dealing with crimes that have already  taken  place. However, the reason for the shift in states emphasis towards prevention in counter-terrorism is that terrorism is an extraordinary threat that calls for a special response. A unique theme of most anti-terror legislations is focusing on what is referred to by the government as ‘prevention’ - hoping to foil foreseeable attacks from the terrorists. However, the key concern is the impact on the Rule of Law values when applying the anti-terror laws. This article argues that the preventive methods adopted by Malaysia, India and the United Kingdom are  effective in forestalling terrorist activities to  a certain extent, but often this comes at a high price to pay when individual human rights are sacrificed along the way. Further, anti-terror legislation has degraded the Rule of Law values in response to terrorism threat or national security.
 
Keywords: Rule of Law, Terrorism; National security; Preventive detention; POTA 2015.
 
Abstrak: Perubahan dalam struktur perundangan sebagai tindak balas kepada ancaman keganasan di negara seperti Malaysia, India dan United Kingdom selepas serangan  9/11  menyaksikan isu keselamatan negara dan undang-undang jenayah telah diintegrasikan untuk membentuk satu undang-undang keselamatan baharu yang agak luar biasa yang diiktiraf oleh pihak berkuasa. Integrasi ini berlandaskan premis bahawa keganasan ialah satu ancaman yang dipandang serius dan memerlukan undang-undang yang bersesuaian untuk membendungnya yang dirujuk sebagai satu ‘paradigma baharu pencegahan’. Pada lazimnya, undang-undang jenayah hanya tertumpu kepada menangani jenayah yang telah berlaku dan tidak memberi tumpuan kepada jenayah yang bakal dilakukan oleh pengganas. Oleh sebab itu, satu perubahan telah dilihat apabila penekanan terhadap pencegahan dalam membendung keganasan oleh negara-negara yang dikaji adalah kerana keganasan dianggap sebagai ancaman luar biasa dan memerlukan tindak balas khas. Dalam undang-undang antikeganasan, tema unik yang diberi perhatian oleh kerajaan adalah kepada langkah pencegahan dengan  harapan  ia  dapat  mematahkan  cubaan  serangan yang dirancang oleh pihak pengganas. Walau bagaimanapun, keprihatinan utama ialah kesan ke atas peraturan Undang-undang apabila undang-undang antikeganasan dilaksanakan. Artikel ini berpendapat bahawa kaedah pencegahan yang diterima pakai  oleh negara seperti Malaysia, India dan United Kingdom berkesan dalam menghalang kegiatan pengganas pada tahap tertentu, tetapi malangnya selalu melibatkan pengorbanan hak asasi individu. Tambahan pula, undang-undang antikeganasan telah menggugat nilai-nilai peraturan undang-undang susulan daripada tindak balas yang diambil terhadap ancaman daripada keganasan atau untuk keselamatan negara.
 
Kata Kunci: Peraturan undang-undang; Keganasan; Keselamatan negara; Tahanan pencegahan; POTA 2015

References

Abdul Ghani Haroon v Ketua Polis Negara and Anor. (2001). 2 CLJ 709.

Ateef Nasir Mulla v State of Maharashtra. (2005). 7 SCC 29 (Mulund Blast case).

A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department. (2004). UKHL 56 (The Belmarsh case).

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. (2017). Legislation. gov.uk. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2001/24/introduction/enacted

Bonner, D. (2006). Checking the executive? Detention without trial, control orders, due process and human rights. European Public Law,12(1), 45-71.

BK Lala v Chhattisgarh. (2012). Cri LJ 1629.

Cole, D. (2009). Out of the shadows: Preventive detention, suspected terrorists, and war. California Law Review, 97(3), 693-750. Dhawan R. India’s Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA): The Return of POTA & TADA” - Europe Solidaire Sans

Frontières. (2008). Europe-solidaire.org. Retrieved from http://www.europe solidaire.org/spip.php? article15177

Donkin, S. (2013). Preventing terrorism and controlling risk: A comparative analysis of control orders in the UK and Australia (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media. Indian Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Indian Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. Malaysia reveals militant link to arrests - January 23, 2002. Edition. cnn.com. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/01/23/malaysia.muslim.arrest/ index.html Mohd. Maroof @ Ibrahim & Ors v State. (12 May 2015). Delhi High Court.

UUMJLS 8, 57-85 (2017) Parliamentary Debates, Dewan Rakyat. (21.6.1960). p. 1189

Operation Lalang Revisited. (2016). Aliran.com. Retrieved from http://aliran.com/oldsite/hr/js3.html Press Releases Singapore Government Press Statement on ISA Arrests, 11 January 2002. Mha.gov.sg. Retrieved from https://www.mha.gov.sg/Newsroom/press-releases/Pages/ Singapore%20Government%20Press%20Statement%20 On%20ISA%20Arrests,%2011%20January%202002.aspx Prevention of Terrorism Bill, a welcomed conjoined twin to ISA, says Perkasa - The Rakyat Post. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2015/03/31/preventionof-terrorism-bill-a-welcomed-conjoined-twin-to-isa-saysperkasa/Malaysian Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2015. Rajnikant Jivanlal v Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau,

New Delhi, (1989) 3 SCC 532.

Raz, J. (1979). The authority of law (1st ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi v State, GNCTD & Ors. (2012). 12 SCC.

Sanjay Dutt v State through CBI, Bombay. (1994). 5 SCC 410.

The Star Online. (2012). Security Offences Bill a positive step, says Suhakam. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/news/ nation/2012/04/16/security-offences-bill-a-positive-stepsays-suhakam/

Stigall, D. (2009). Counterterrorism and the comparative law of investigative detention. Cambria Press. Steven Green Chapter 2: Preventive Detention and Public Security - Towards A General Model. In Harding, A., & Hatchard, J. (Eds.). (1993). Preventive Detention and Security Law: A Comparative Survey (Vol. 31). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle (Vol. 6). Cambridge University Press. SS for Home Dept. v. JJ & others [2007]. UKHL 45.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. The Malaysian Bar - Press Release | “SOSMA Must Not Be Abused to Quell Dissent.” Malaysianbar.org.my. Retrieved from http://www. malaysianbar.org.my/press_statements/press_release_%7C_ sosma_must_not_be_abused_to_quell_dissent.html

The Constitution of India. Union of India v Thamisharasi. (1995). 4 SCC 190.

UUMJLS 8, 87-112 (2017) Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. (UAPA 1967).

UK counter-terror review explained. BBC News. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12289294

Waxman, M. C. (2009). Administrative detention of terrorists: Why detain, and detain whom? Columbia Public Law Research Paper, (08-190), 08-190.

Webber, D. (2016). Preventive detention of terror suspects: A new legal framework. United Kingdom: Routledge.

Downloads

Published

01-12-2017

How to Cite

Kwang, H. P., Sabaruddin, J. S., & Dhanapal, S. (2017). An Overview of the Rule of Law Values Within Malaysia’s Anti-Terror Law: A Legal Perspective from India and the United Kingdom. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 8, 57-85. https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2017.8.3

Research impact

Harvested 2026-09-24
0 citations recorded so far

Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.

Identifiers DOI 10.32890/uumjls2017.8.3