THE Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) arrests have brought to light terrorism prevention in Malaysia.

While police have undoubtedly served the country well, for example foiling attempts by the Islamic State to carry out attacks against our politicians, other goings-on in law enforcement and the courts, as well as executive decisions and political statements made, seem to send mixed signals as to how we define terrorism and how we deal with it.

Anti-terrorism efforts here began even before the Japanese occupation, when forces loyal to the Japanese infiltrated trade unions to expound their propaganda. The British lost Malaya, but then regained it, and they went on a campaign against the “terrorists” who were disloyal to them. The Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was quickly formed, only to turn anti-British later on.

As they say, one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.

The Malayan Communist Party (MCP) murdered government officials and cops, raided villages and police stations, and killed, injured and displaced many civilians. But, some still consider them as independence fighters.

It was MCP’s attacks that led to the beefing up of the Special Branch and the eventual enactment of the Internal Security Act 1960. Since then, our counterterrorism measures have been constantly praised as exemplary, and our intelligence among the world’s best.

But, our treatment of terrorists and their alleged sympathisers has not always been equal.

When dealing with militant group Al Ma’unah, the then government seemed to have placed special emphasis for the charges brought against the members to be in line with mainstream laws, and worked to reintegrate them into society.

We’ve also read about efforts to bring back and reintegrate Malaysian terrorists who had travelled to Syria and Lebanon to join IS, but want to return home.

On the other hand, the authorities barred the remains of Communist leader Chin Peng – a terrorist – from being buried in Malaysia.

Perhaps, the sensitivities differ because Chin Peng had directly waged war against his government, while the other militants participated in fighting in a foreign place, where the political actors involved are different, thus not really affecting Malaysia.

The dangers of having such ideologies spread, however, cannot be taken lightly. The question is, though, when does studying an ideology or sympathising with a particular cause cross over into terrorism?

Parti Sosialis Malaysia, for instance, have had its programmes investigated for purportedly spreading, among others, the Marxist ideology, which is standard reading for a law student studying jurisprudence, or a philosophy major.

On the surface, at least, it does not seem like the LTTE suspects had made a call to arms, but they were detained over an event or two deemed to be sympathetic to the group. The matter remains to be proven in the courts.

Which definition of a “terrorist group” do we follow, and what are the guidelines? Do we support friendly states’ definition of “undesirable entities” and declare them as such, too? How about Falun Gong, then?

If this is so, then whose definition should we follow?

India and several other nations have kept LTTE on their lists of terrorist organisations, perhaps for political reasons. And for similar reasons, arguably, the European Union removed the group from its watch list in 2017. Which list should Malaysia give weight to?

In this day and age, laws can be better defined, and if necessary, strengthened. The unfettered use of power leads to abuse. Education and outreach measures, meanwhile, appear to have been neglected.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2014 has provisions for a Prevention of Terrorism Board, whose powers are mainly to enforce detention orders and provide checks and balances. Perhaps, the board can be empowered to conduct studies on the root causes of terrorism and make the appropriate recommendations, and assist the government and enforcement bodies when it comes to interpreting terrorism-related laws.

As far as enforcement goes, laws should clearly differentiate between conversations on terrorism, however controversial, and the actual promotion of terrorist acts. There should also be demarcations to minimise the tendency to look at terrorism through the lens of race and religion, which has tinted how we view almost everything, from road accidents to riots, these days.

Understanding terrorism’s root causes and helping combat it is a responsibility we owe to the world, given our unique ethnic and religious composition. By having a deep insight, we will be able to address other forms of extremism threatening our country. – October 30, 2019.

* Emmanuel Joseph firmly believes that Klang is the best place on Earth, and that motivated people can do far more good than any leader with motive.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.