Why the NSC Bill should scare the living daylights out of you
The Council may be able to do anything anywhere in the country so long as it believes national security is under threat.
Khairie Hisyam Aliman, The Malay Mail Online
On Tuesday, minister Datuk Seri Dr Shahidan Kassim dropped a bombshell by way of the National Security Bill 2015 ― furore immediately erupted over the allegedly excessive powers this Bill seeks to confer to a sitting prime minister if it is passed into law.
But what are these powers exactly and what implications do they bring to us? On Wednesday, a copy of the Bill became available for download on the Parliament website, so I indulged my curiosity (because I have an unnatural reading preference).
In simple terms, the Bill seeks to set up a National Security Council with eight members, namely the sitting prime minister as chairman; the deputy prime minister as deputy chairman; the ministers in charge of defence, home affairs and communication/multimedia respectively; the chief secretary to the government; the chief of the armed forces; and the Inspector General of Police.
The council’s powers under the Bill can be summarised into two broad areas: to control and co-ordinate government entities on operations concerning national security as well as to issue directives to any government entity on matters concerning national security.
But that’s where the problem begins, because….
1. National security can be anything
While what “national security” is not explicitly defined in this Bill, Clause 4 which deals with the functions of the Council offers an indirect definition.
Among others, the Council will function to “formulate policies and strategic measures on national security, including sovereignty, territorial integrity, defence, socio-political stability, economic stability, strategic resources, national unity and other interests relating to national security.”
Think about that long sentence for a minute. Notice that the quote above explicitly includes “socio-political stability”, “economic stability” and “national unity” as part of what it says constitute “national security.”
This implies that matters of national security under this Bill may extend to a very wide spectrum of subjects which are not strictly limited to threats of terrorism and violence as we may think of it. Such vagueness only opens room for potential abuse.
Will socio-political stability be deemed threatened if members of Umno threaten to overthrow an incumbent president as part of an internal power struggle, for example? Will socio-political stability be deemed threatened if there is public discourse over Bumiputera rights and the position of Islam-related institutions such as Jakim?
Will national unity be deemed threatened if Malaysians gather for another public rally similar to those organised by Bersih, for example? Will national unity be deemed threatened if Malay leaders are criticised for their mistakes, even if such criticism are based on verifiable facts and sound logic?
Will economic stability be deemed threatened if members of the public publicly criticise government policies or actions concerning the economy and business environment, for example?
We don’t know where “national security” really ends, which means we don’t know where the jurisdiction of this Council really ends. For all intents and purposes, this Council seems empowered over anything and everything it thinks is covered by the phrase “national security.”
And that raises another question….
2. Vaguely wide powers over the whole country
Clause 5, which deals with the powers of the Council, states: “Notwithstanding any other written law, the Council shall have the power to do all things necessary or expedient for or in connection with the performance of its functions…”
Note the word “notwithstanding”, which Oxford Dictionaries interpret as “in spite of.” In layman terms, the Council can do anything it thinks is necessary in respect to its functions (see (1) above) regardless of whatever any other existing law of the country says.
