Bold claim: Two years left, and reform like Sosma must go now if any government truly intends to deliver its promises. That’s the core issue at hand.
A PKR Member of Parliament is pressing the government to repeal the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), arguing that with just two years remaining before the next general election, the administration must fulfill the reforms it campaigned on.
Hassan Karim (PH-Pasir Gudang) emphasized that Pakatan Harapan (PH), which is part of the ruling coalition, pledged in its electoral platform to repeal what he and many others consider draconian laws, including Sosma.
“Now is the moment, as we still have two more years in this parliamentary term,” he stated during a debate on the parliamentary select committee on human rights, elections, and institutional reform recommendations.
If Sosma is not repealed, he argued, it would signal personal and collective failure to pursue genuine reforms.
Hassan, who has repeatedly criticized Sosma, asserted that existing statutes like the Penal Code and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 are adequate to address organised crime and terrorism, areas Sosma has been used to confront.
He posed a direct question: aren’t there already enough tools to combat organised crime?
Earlier, committee chair William Leong (PH-Selayang) informed the Dewan Rakyat that concerns about Sosma were raised during consultations with rights groups Suaram and the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.
The feedback highlighted problems such as the broad and vague scope of “security offences,” the erosion of detainees’ human rights through detention without trial, denial of bail, and limited judicial oversight that can hinder legal access and invite potential abuse.
The committee offered eight recommendations, including refining the definitions of “security offences,” “terror crimes,” and “organised crime,” and reviewing Section 13 of Sosma, which bans bail and infringes civil liberties.
Leong cautioned that amendments must be crafted carefully so they do not undermine the country’s ability to maintain peace and public order.
Other proposals called for restoring judicial discretion in remand decisions, bail, and trials, enhancing court-driven monitoring, and improving detainee welfare alongside access to psychological support.
Would-be reformers face a delicate balance: safeguarding public safety while expanding protections and due process. How far should reform go, and what trade-offs are acceptable to ensure peace and liberty coexist? Share your views in the comments.
