“The presumption of innocence, the right to due process, proportional sentencing and protection against arbitrary detention are weakened when the ‘security’ label is applied prematurely or inaccurately.”
FOR decades, security studies have dominated how terrorism and violent extremism are interpreted, categorised and discussed, often excluding legal, social and victim-centred perspectives.
This dominance is not extended to all forms of violence but it has been particularly pronounced in cases that are politically charged, spectacular or emotionally disturbing.
Complex incidents are increasingly framed through a security lens, leading to instances where acts are mislabelled or misidentified as terrorism even when they do not meet the legal threshold.
This shift matters. Terrorism is not a descriptive label; it is a legal classification with profound consequences. When security narratives displace legal analysis, the distinction between ordinary criminal violence and terrorism becomes blurred.
The result is over-securitisation, where exceptional legal frameworks are applied to cases that should properly be addressed within ordinary criminal law.
Recent experiences across Asia and Australasia illustrate this danger clearly. In several high-profile incidents, including mass stabbings and lone-actor attacks in public spaces, early media and online commentary rushed to frame the violence as terrorism.
In some cases, investigations later confirmed the absence of ideological motivation, organisational links or intent to intimidate the public or coerce the state.
Factors such as acute mental illness, personal grievance or domestic circumstances proved central. Yet, the initial terrorism framing had already shaped public perception, policy debate and calls for legal responses.
At its most dangerous, this trend negates fundamental rights. The presumption of innocence, the right to due process, proportional sentencing and protection against arbitrary detention are weakened when the “security” label is applied prematurely or inaccurately. Law ceases to function as a system of principled adjudication and instead becomes reactive, punitive and fear-driven.
This approach is also deeply unfair to victims. When violence is hastily framed as terrorism, victims risk being reduced to symbols within a security narrative rather than recognised as individuals who have suffered specific and harm.
Their cases become instruments for broader political messaging rather than processes aimed at truth, accountability and justice. In such moments, the law risks becoming performative – more concerned with appearing tough than with being just.
Across the region in 2025, public outrage following horrific acts of violence has been understandable and intense. But moral panic must never dictate legal classification.
Experience shows that fear-driven responses distort evidence, encourage overcharging and legitimise shortcuts that ultimately damage institutional credibility and public trust. Once the terrorism label is invoked, it is difficult to reverse, even when subsequent facts do not support it.
Counter-terrorism laws were designed for exceptional circumstances; they are not meant to be default responses to violence, no matter how brutal. Their application should be confined to cases where the act clearly demonstrates the defining elements of terrorism – ideological motivation, intent to intimidate or coerce a population or government, and a demonstrable nexus to organised extremist objectives. Violence alone is not enough.
The risks of mislabelling are especially acute when children in conflict with the law are involved.
In some recent cases, minors implicated in violent conduct were publicly framed through a terrorism or national security lens at an early stage despite their age, vulnerability and the absence of confirmed extremist intent. This is legally and ethically indefensible.
Children accused of serious offences remain entitled to heightened protection, rehabilitation-oriented justice and procedural safeguards under domestic juvenile justice laws and international standards.
Premature securitisation collapses these protections and exposes children to stigma and punitive treatment that undermine both justice and long-term public safety.
Determining whether the legal threshold for terrorism has been met is not the role of commentators, scholars or members of the public relying on fragments of information, hearsay or social media narratives.
Such determinations rest with front-line enforcement officers who have access to intelligence, evidence and operational context, and ultimately with the Attorney General’s Chambers, exercising prosecutorial discretion within constitutional and statutory limits. Anything else risks replacing legal judgment with speculation.
Equally concerning is the proliferation of self-proclaimed “security analysts” and “experts” who publicly label incidents as terrorism without accountability or regulatory oversight.
Individuals who claim military or security expertise without proper licensing or recognition by defence authorities contribute not to clarity but to confusion. Their commentaries, often amplified by media platforms, distort facts, fuel moral panic and exert undue pressure on institutions to securitise cases prematurely. This is not merely a problem of poor analysis; it is a threat to the rule of law.
When exceptional labels are normalised, exceptional powers will follow. Over time, counter-terrorism law is diluted, victims are instrumentalised, children are improperly criminalised and justice is compromised.
True security is not achieved by stretching legal definitions beyond recognition. It is achieved through disciplined restraint, institutional competence and a clear separation between ordinary criminal justice and genuinely exceptional threats.
Counter-terrorism law must remain exceptional, evidence-based and legally grounded or it risks losing legitimacy and purpose.
When security labels replace legal judgment, justice becomes collateral damage and neither society nor victims are safer for it.
Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid is a criminologist and senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
