Law and terror

It is odd to conceive of anti-terrorism law in Malaysia and Singapore as if it were something exceptional or extraordinary. The truth is that for as long as independent Malaysia and Singapore have existed, and for some time before, there has been in coexistence a formidable phalanx of anti-terrorism legislation. Not only has this network of laws been retained, it has gone from strength to strength, enjoying the occasional patch to remedy governmentally perceived flaws. Measures, once thought of as temporary and confined to narrow situations, have defied temporal and contextual boundaries. Legislative and (subsequently) constitutional entrenchment of anti-terrorism law provided the framework for a pattern of executive use in contexts as varied as the post-War armed communist, and substantially Chinese, insurrection to the recent efforts of the Islamic, and substantially Malay, Jemaah Islamiyah to retaliate against the United States and its allies. It is perhaps inevitable that individuals who were adversely affected by the use of anti-terrorism legislation should call upon the courts for relief. The result is, on occasion, a heroic attempt by the judges to be faithful to governmental intent, and at the same time to demonstrate a degree of independence from the government. This, in turn, has provoked the government to respond through legislative and constitutional amendments, setting up a tense dialogue between these great institutions of state.