The redefinition of the term 'terrorist act' in the Penal Code proposed by the parliamentary select committee in its newly released report is insufficient, according to a human rights lawyer today.

"What they (the committee) have done is to define the term slightly narrower than the original but it has not gone far enough to allay fears," said Edmund Bon when contacted.

However, he said the committee should be credited for recognising public concerns over the original definition, which was too wide.

The committee had proposed to redefine 'terrorist act' as an "act done with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause".

The committee's report, tabled to the Dewan Rakyat last Thursday, also contained a copy of the amendment bill scheduled for second reading during the next Parliament sitting in June.

What about public protests?

Commenting further, Bon asked whether holding a public protest could be argued as advancing an ideological cause?

Will this result in the protestors being charged for such an offence? he added.

As a lawyer, Bon said he was concerned as to how far the new definition could affect provisions under the code, which aimed to punish not only terrorists but also those who provide them with services and facilities.

Lawyers and accountants had opposed these new anti-terror provisions because they would be obligated to ascertain whether their clients are involved in terrorism.

The committee did not propose any amendments on clauses pertaining to those deemed as providing services or facilities in support of terrorist acts.

"We will be under more pressure to breach the confidential privilege with clients," lamented Bon.

"It doesn't answer the question as to whether to defend one in court also meant assisting terrorist action and (therefore) be punishable under the Penal Code," he said.

Wider spectrum

Bon stressed that a codified legislation in dealing with threats to national security, including terrorism should be enacted as recommended by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.

He said a number of laws dealing with national security are already in place and thus raised the question whether there was need to add on a new laws.

"It is casting a net onto a wider spectrum of people in carrying out their daily activity," he added.

Meanwhile, committee member Teresa Kok argued that the redefinition was sufficient to address the concern because it had an effect on the clauses of providing services to terrorists.

She also said most of the groups that came forward to submit their views on the terrorism-related provisions were only concerned about the vague definition of the term.

The redefinition, she added, would allow anti-Internal Security Act (ISA) lobbyist to argue that detainees should be charged in an open court under the Penal Code instead of being held without trial under th ISA.

"With the new anti-terror law, there is provision under the code to try person alleged of being a threat to national security," said the DAP Seputeh MP.