Malaysia's main concern: Protecting citizens

Mohamad Najib Tun Abdul Razak, Minister of Defense, Malaysia

Malaysia has been steadfast in meeting the rise of militancy within its borders. Thanks perhaps to our former British colonial masters, we have the legal framework which allows the government to take preemptive steps, in order to prevent acts of terror, or even inciting hatred, which would undermine the government. The Internal Security Act allows us that flexibility. We cannot allow terrorism to strike first. While there will always be people who would raise questions over human rights, our argument is straight forward. What about the rights of the citizens to be protected? We notice that lately, there is a lot more appreciation of such preemptive measures.

We must also halt the supply line that feeds into terrorist movements. Having discovered that our students have been involved in countries that are known to promote terrorism, we are now taking firm action, including stopping them from going to such places. We are re-examining the role of private religious schools in the country.

Winning the hearts and minds of Muslims form a greater challenge facing governments that has a sizable Muslim population. We believe that our Islamic model is moderate and is the preferred one by the majority, one that sees tolerance and respect for other religions, development and modernity' and pursuit of knowledge, to be fundamental to Islam. We need to open the closed minds of Muslims who have taken the parochial view of Islam.

While Malaysia has secured its borders, militancy and terrorism, however, knows no boundaries. It is imperative that there exists some form of regional-based security cooperative framework, which will provide not only a common platform, but also common actions on this grave issue.

There are two ways we can achieve this. Firstly, to expand the security arrangements, to include terrorism and counterterrorism, perhaps even making it part and parcel of operational exercises. This can be done within the context of bilateral or multilateral, involving ASEAN or its member states, as well as other powers. The bilateral General Border Committees (GBCs), such as Malaysia- Indonesia and Malaysia-Thailand, have already included terrorism as part of its agenda. Even the Five Powers Defense Arrangement, which is mainly conventional-based, could be expanded to address this threat.

Secondly, we could establish a new framework, with the niche area of combating terrorism. There are already a number of informal initiatives. As terrorism is a real threat, whatever regional initiative we come out with, they must be action- oriented and in this regard, the defense and security forces are poised to take up such a challenge. The time has come for us to be pragmatic and be bold to move forward and meet this threat collectively.

The U.S. appears to be much more appreciative of the measures employed by other countries. During my recent meeting with U.S. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in Washington DC, apart from expressing his deep appreciation of Malaysia's efforts, as a "cooperating partner" with the United States, he stated that the United States has accepted that Muslim countries should be allowed to initiate their own approach in fighting terrorism for they are the ones who best understand the political, economic and religious problems of their country. Such prudent understanding on the part of the Americans will go a long way in getting the support of such states.

During Malaysia's Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's most recent visit to the U.S., his leadership has been acknowledged and recognized, not only of the region, and the developing world, but also of the Muslim world. Dr. Mahathir has put across his views and even though they may be quite strident, his sincerity in dealing with the situation has carried the day and is today proven to be of great value in combating terrorism.

While there has been much condemnation against terrorism, it cannot be said that it is a weapon of the coward, but rather of the weak. We have to prevent individuals and groups from being easily seduced and mesmerized by the calls of the militants and be used and exploited as mere pawns.

We must continue to raise the stakes for everyone. When the stakes are low, people are far more willing to destroy and threaten stability. We must give our population a decent standard of living and ensure that they have hope, not mere dreams, deeds and nor mere words.

Regionally, we cannot afford to have islands of prosperity in a sea of poverty.

There must be a much more equitable world, a world that cannot be divided between the rich and the poor, but rather of the rich and the richer. The WTO rules must reflect the inequalities of the world. It is when states and their population feel that they are not victims of the rich and powerful will they see things in better light. There are too many states that have become breeding ground for discontentment and the road to terrorism is indeed a short one.

We should also embark on a global war against injustice, poverty and underdevelopment. Real politik tells us that without the firm commitment of the United States, there will be no real progress. If we can send our young to the battlefields, we can surely send them to the fields of development. Even Americans, such as Harvard Professor Jeffrey Sachs, are making similar calls. He talked about indifference and how the U.S. could malice a difference. He wrote, "I single out America, not because it is unique in its neglect, but because it is unique in its capacity to lead". That is why I urge the United States to lead the war against poverty. This is will certainly be hailed by the world's population and may well be U.S.'s global legacy of the post-cold war era.

The above is based on the writer's presentation on Saturday at the Asia Security Conference held by the International Institute for Strategic Studies Asia in Singapore. The talks took place from last Friday to Sunday.