Is preventive law such as SOSMA needed as a preventive measure to safe guard the
peace and harmony of society?
Every country needs to have its own law to prevent to be used as a preventive measure to safe guard the peace and harmony of society, this is something the government need to maintain the order of the country to prevent any radical event that will cause ruckus. SOSMA was created to curb terrorism activities, however the enforcement of the Act seems contradicts with the government's stand. As Malaysia is a democratic country, people do have rights to voice out should be given the freedom of speech. reventive law should only be use when there are an outbreak or when people trying to make some racist discrimination. So, SOSMA is not the right act to maintain the peace and human rights. !n "#$", government finally repealed the !nternal Security Act $%&# '!SA( and substitute it with the Security Offenses 'Special Measures( "#$" Act 'SOSMA( which is administration detention without trial. !SA has been critici)ed for allowing preventive detention for indefinite periods without trial. rime Minister *atuk Seri +a,ib -a)ak said the government would no longer limit individual.s freedom but instead ensure their basic constitutional rights were protected. On the surface SOSMA may be better and different from !SA, but it is guaranteed that Malaysian.s basic rights will be protected and there peace will be maintained/ 0nfortunately, the definition and enforcement of SOSMA is 1uestionable. Malaysia government passed laws permitting detention without trial, dragged critics into court for staging protests and showing films, and continued its dubious prosecution of the opposition leader. 2here are definitely positive aspects of the SOSMA which are as follows3 reviously !SA allowed police to detain individuals for &# days. +ow, under SOSMA, this has been shortened to "4 days. !SA allowed the home minister the discretion to place individuals under detention without trial for two years, renewable indefinitely. +ow, this power has been taken away. !SA allowed police broad scope under which they could detain anyone acting in a manner pre,udicial to the security of Malaysia, or to the maintenance of the country.s essential services or economic life. 0nder SOSMA, only those suspected of 5security offenses6 may be detained by the police. *espite the positive aspects, there are issues with SOSMA.s implementation. 7irstly, the definition for who may be arrested under SOSMA is too broad. 2he definition of 5security offenses6 includes committing acts 5pre,udicial to national security and public safety6. 2his is not any better than the !SA definition. Such a broad definition gives government sufficient power to bring partisan politics into decisions as to what is or is not a security breach. 7or e8ample, the government could decide that the ongoing 9ersih 5clean elections6 campaign is a security offense as it is intended to influence or compel the government to change electoral practices. Another e8ample would be the 9ersih ".# rally where government stated that possession of :he ;uevera 2<shirts and Seksualiti Merdeka is a se8uality rights festival which government categori)e as national security threats that will affect the peace of people. 7rom all the interpretation above, SOSMA do not seems to be used to help people to maintain peace but to allow the government to manipulate the Act according to their benefits. Moreover, police should not have the power to authori)e communication intercepts, and prosecutors not supposed to utili)e information as evidence without disclosing sources but this is all happening in Malaysia under SOSMA. Secondly, the power to detain suspects for "4 days is given to the police without ,udicial oversight. eople that are arrested under SOSMA need not be produced before a magistrate. An officer of higher rank may e8tend the detention for "4 days ,ust for the purposes of 5investigation6. Ordinarily, persons arrested by the police can only be detained for up to "= hours. After that, the person must be released unless produced before a magistrate who may order further detention for the police to complete their investigation. As we could see, what SOSMA allows is e8ceeding the norms. 2his posted a 1uestion whether is government truly concern about protecting the people.s safety and basic constitutional rights or ,ust themselves and their power. 9ased on the actions, who do you think e8actly is a national security threat/ A person ac1uitted under SOSMA can be imprisoned for an indefinite time pending appeal. A government who genuinely wanting to respect constitutional rights and protect its people.s safety would not introduce a security law with so many loopholes. !t would institute tighter safeguards with ,udicial oversight and not leave citi)ens open to abuse of police power. Many says that !SA is used to protect the safety of the people and as SOSMA is a replacement of !SA so this act supposed to continue to protect the citi)ens. *uring the $%&#s and $%>#s, the Malaysian government used the !SA to suppress political activity. Mahathir used the !SA e8tensively to imprison political opponents and human rights activists, with the most prominent e8ample being Operation ?alang in $%4>, through which the government detained $#& human rights advocates and political activists from the ma,or political parties. According to +oh Omar, SOSMA is vital to deal with gangsterism. !n $%4>, the nation almost saw a racial riot as some non<Malays started 1uestioning Malay privileges. @ithout the !SA then, Malaysia may not have seen peace. 5Aust because the communist threat is over, do you think there are no other threats/ ?ook at Aemaah !slamiah. !ts members were all arrested under the !SA because they were a threat to our country. Since !SA is no longer around, we have SOSMA. 2he new threat are the gangsters were now wrecking havoc among Malaysians, causing public order concerns6 said +oh Omar. http3BBwww.freemalaysiatoday.comBcategoryBnationB"#$CB$#B"CBumno<mp<defends<ops< lalang<hits<out<at<gangsterismB 2he first SOSMA detentions demonstrated the police.s ability to circumvent the law. 2here is this case about Da)id Sufaat, a former detainee of seven years under the !SA is now detained under the SOSMA. 2his clearly shows that SOSMA is !SA. 2he lawyers had lodged a report against the olice for allegedly denying his right to legal representation. ?awyers were not allowed to see the detainees despite the new law allowing police to deny such access for only =4 hours. Other changes refer to the rules of evidence, where prosecutors can bring up evidence without disclosing sources. !n conclusion, SOSMA preserves a way to detain individuals for years by simply filing appeals. As long as the appeals process continues, an ac1uitted suspect may be detained or tethered to a monitoring device, a blatant denial of personal liberty that could potentially take years to resolve. 2he government states that SOSMA is an improvement over the !SA but as actions they did, it does not seems true. 2he process may be different, but the resultant detention without trial is no different than the !SA. SOSMA is said to provide for special measures relating to security offences for the purpose of maintaining public order and security and for connected matters. SOSMA seems overriding the ob,ective of e8ternal security problems such as terrorism. !t is true that preventive laws are needed to maintain the safety of the citi)ens, so if government is concern about people.s right and to protect the safety of the people, then Malaysian government should immediately withdraw the SOSMA provisions that violate protection of fundamental human rights. 2hen it should eliminate the overly broad and often vague language in SOSMA and associated bills that undermine basic human rights in the name of national security. 7irst of all the definition of SOSMA shall be amended to be more precise. !t could be amend according to the definition 0nited +ations '0+( :onvention for the Suppression of the 7inancing of 2errorism to protect the safety of its people. 2he 0+ definition confines terrorist acts to those specifically intended to cause death or serious bodily in,ury for the purpose of influencing government actions. And finally, make SOSMA a law that can safe guard the peace and harmony that Malaysians deserve.
United States v. David Podlog Alexander Moysif Yelena Moysif Joseph Forzano Lyudmila Forzano Michael Cardone Ronald Petrino Gennady Chernyakhovsky Adolf Sirotnikov Aron Roizis Yefim Kats Yura Popov, Calogero Badalamenti John Romano Giuseppe Genna and Sergey Mogorichev, Also Known as "Sergio", Also Known as "Seryi", 35 F.3d 699, 2d Cir. (1994)