A Unique Article

I like reading the Financial Times because they always surprise me with articles that I don't expect. They are unconventional and they rock! Today they published an article written by a former terrorist in Palestine, Amitai Etzioni, who is now a professor of international relations at The George Washington University. Now, how strange is that!

Amitai gave a very different perspective about this whole terrorism thing and an insight of effective ways in tackling them. One of them, he suggested, "the first goal in dealing with terrorists must be prevention, not prosecution, which takes place after the act has been committed and is the way society limits criminality". This, he pointed out that grouping terrorists as criminals is merely an act of "changing label rather than the content of the bottle".

The root cause of terrorism must be known. What are they fighting for and most importantly, why are they using the more aggresive means to solving problems? To gain international attention? Or merely an act of retaliation from the suppressed hatred of their targets?

Amitai did not pretend that solving terrorism was easy either. One of the ways that he suggested was "prevention that requires questioning and even detaining people who have not yet violated any law." Now this statement struck a chord with the Internal Security Act (ISA) that has divided nationalists, policymakers and politically-interested people in Malaysia since the time of Mahathir and spilled over to the present administration. While the imbroglio of the ISA has caused discomfort to certain quarters of Malaysians, I suspect that this is more likely a dissenting sentiment of enforcement rather than the Act itself. The controversy of the ISA is closely associated with human rights. While Malaysia is fortunate that it is not a hot target of terrorists, the existence of the ISA has become a big question mark. The people now ask: "Do we need the ISA then?"

Personally, I see this more of a question of: "Why has the ISA become such a big issue that people want it abolished?" I did a quick search on matters pertaining to calls for the abolishment of the ISA and found that most of the reasons were centred on loss of human rights. If I can even bring it to focus, the main problem is the "misuse" of the Act.

Photo of Al-Maunah leader from BBC

Now, if the problem is misuse of the Act, then we should gear our solutions towards eradicating the misuse of the Act, not the Act itself. I am neither advocating for the preservation nor abolishment of the ISA but it's only logical that for once, we call a spade a spade. Repealing an Act is easier than bringing it back later. We really have to think hard. Do we repeal the ISA because it has been used too frequently where the line between political foes and threats to national security has been blurred or cannot be distinguished? Or because it's the right thing to do? Ultimately, we need to ask what was this Act for in the first place? Has it solved past threats effectively? Would the incident that the Act was meant to solve likely to recur in future? And if it would, why take it out when it has proven to be effective?

Amitai's testimony has only made me imagine, what if one day Malaysia is being infiltrated by terrorists or attacked by them and the ISA has been abolished, how then could we tackle terrorism through "prevention"? I think Amitai has the answer...