Navigating National Security Vulnerabilities

Speaker A: This is a podcast from BFM 89.9, the business station

Speaker B: you're tuning in to the BFM Breakfast Grill, powered by Umobile's Ultra 5G, Malaysia's number one 5G network.

Speaker C: Good morning. I'm Sharad Kuttan. And on the Breakfast Grill today, we're going to be talking about national security. Now, when the Prime Minister, Datsuyano Ibrahim, announced restrictions on the use of the navigational app Waze for civil servants, it received significant pushback from the larger public. Allegations about possible vulnerabilities or targeting by Israel, country we had no diplomatic ties with, did little to quell the annoyance of a disgruntled segment of the public. Now I'm going to try and address those concerns of that segment. The question really is, was the move by the government not well thought out? Was it triggered instead by a genuine security concern, uh, that's yet to be shared by the public? Uh, how does government navigate the democratic demands for transparency on one hand, and a domestic security architecture that perhaps requires restrictions on information to be effective on the other hand? Now, to discuss these matters, uh, with us is Rajidato Noshiwan Bin Zain Al Abideen, the Director General of the National Security Council of Malaysia. A courier, diplomat, Rajanoshiewan was our ambassador to the People's Republic of China, among other important nations in the world. Thank you so much for joining us.

Speaker D: Thank you. Good morning.

Speaker C: Now, you know you were last on BFM in September, uh, last year. And so much of the world has changed, um, and that seems to be an understatement. Are we living in a much more dangerous place, uh, Dato, since we last met?

Speaker D: Well, it's certainly much more uncertain whether it's, uh, equally dangerous or otherwise. It's, uh, a matter of interpretation. But. But before I go on further into that, let me preface it with this statement that, um, in my line of work, I make no moral judgments about, uh, how other countries or how my counterparts, uh, assess their security situation and the means through which they want to achieve those security goals. I mean, every sovereign nation has, uh, its own criteria, so on and so forth. So I make no moral judgments. But what we do, but what is important is that we understand what those concerns are, where they emanate from, and the means with which they want to achieve those goals, and how it may potentially, uh, affect Malaysia. So we have to have these conversations going. So I just wanted to make that point first. Um, whether the world is, um, more dangerous than before. Like I said, certainly more uncertain, uh, not helped by the fact that um, uh, oftentimes, um, people tend to put two and two together and come up with five. Like uh, you know, what's happened to the Straits of Homos? They automatically think that potentially it can come, uh, that can happen in the Straits of Malacca. Uh, whereas I always say that the only thing that's similar between the Straits of Malacca, the Straits of Hormuz is that they're internationally important bodies of water. That's the only thing that's similar. Otherwise everything else is very different. Um, but you know, it's um, um, it's a question of dealing with perceptions related to security as much as uh, the reality itself.

Speaker C: There's in fact quite a bit of discussion. I think geopolitical conversations have peaked since the Israeli, uh, American war against Iran that certainly, I think ah, people are trying to find, um, navigate this in their minds. And so uh, I'm very glad that you did have that preface because when we talk about the next issue, and this was something that has put national security top of the agenda, at least in the media, is the question of ways. And is the Council, for instance, monitoring the public response to it? Because it does seem to me that there's a bit of distrust, uh, there's a trust deficit, as it were, with the government. Do you see that as an issue and as a problem to be solved?

Speaker D: Well, as far as the Waze issue is concerned, I think there's two aspects to it. One is related to the potential threat posed by Waze itself. And then the question of uh, the uh, um, public dissatisfaction with Duju, which I understand as far as Waze is concerned, I think we have to be very clear in our minds that um, data is the new oil and AI apps or anything that's related to AI, uh, or apps in general. They're like platforms, it's like a car and it runs on data. Uh, and if you give data out, um, that essentially means that um, you give out oil, which you potentially have to others. So um, so in the case of Waze, you're basically giving um, data oil to Israel. Um, and I think what precipitated all of this was the fact that in August, uh, Waze Mobile, um, in the terms and conditions said that uh, any legal dispute will be subject to Israeli law. So that in itself gives rise to a whole host of issues. One is that uh, we have no diplomatic relations, we don't recognize Israel. So from a legal political point of view, we have a problem with that. M2 is because Waze is a Good product, very frankly. Then, um, you know, there's uh, um, a whole host of data from Malaysians, including uh, sensitive, uh, um, data which now reside in Israel. And we've seen uh, what happens when you have data about movements in terms of the strikes against the uh, Iranian leadership in Tehran.

Speaker C: Like targeted assassinations and such.

Speaker D: Exactly. I mean, and the thing about security is that everything is okay until it's not okay. Um, that's one, two is if you want to uh, have an. If you want to conduct operations. I mean it's not as though you, um, uh, there's a linear way of doing it. There's very many ways of doing it and you have to uh, put all of them together in order for you to conduct successful, uh, operations. So I'm not saying that uh, in and of itself, uh, poses a national security threat, but put together with very many things it could.

Speaker C: Yeah. So there is of course some contention about that new clause. Some are saying that uh, it in fact has been part of the thing you sign out. I know many of us don't read the fine print, but it's been there for some time. But that aside, the question of Israel I think is also perhaps a source of disquiet, uh, or disbelief really. Because is, and I want to answer this, is Israel a kind of bogeyman for Malaysia? Has it become too convenient to trot out? Remember the network school issue? Also Israel was a spectre kind of haunting, uh, that particular episode. I mean, is Israel really targeting Malaysia?

Speaker D: Um, you know, the network school, uh, which I think is the right decision because we've seen what happened in Southern Thailand a few months ago. And just a couple of days ago the head of the uh, Chabad House network was uh, basically kicked out of Thailand. So um, there's Israel, like I said, um, um, security. It means that everything is okay until it's not okay. Um, so if you were to say that, yes, it shows evidence that there is intent, there is this, that or the other, that's an

Speaker C: imminent threat.

Speaker D: Yes. Yeah. But you want to avoid a situation when it can become an imminent threat to begin with. Right. Um, so that's what we are trying to do. And again, as you rightly mentioned in your introduction, and which I think I emphasized when we had this conversation in September, because at the end of the day, Malaysia cannot exist except as a multi ethnic and democratic country. So uh, it's bookended by those two things. Right. So you would have to have democratic considerations, um, probably uppermost in your minds as we think about Ways of ensuring national security.

Speaker C: Where does Israel lie within the host of other countries that could be state actors that could be a threat to us as well as non state actors. Is there a list in your mind, in the minds of the Council about what are the other potential sources, uh, uh, of vulnerability?

Speaker D: Um, all right, preface that with another observation just to give context to the way that we think about these issues. Um, you know I mentioned that um, for security everything is uh, okay until it's not okay. That's one. The second, uh, the uh, second consideration is that uh, while intent is important, it is not as important as effect, right? So um, people's intention may be the most, maybe the noblest in the world and they don't mean Malaysia any harm, but the effect might be that. Um, so in the uh, context of Israel, in the context of potential threats, um, I mean taken together it may give rise to very negative effects. So I'm certainly, uh, not anti Semitic in the classical sense. I mean I have some problems with the way that the term antisemitic is conceived, but I certainly don't believe that uh, you know, uh, there's, there's systematically a handful of uh, Jews or Zionists residing in some dark room plotting the overthrow or the downfall of Malaysia. But actions, uh, that they may take may result in that or potentially lead down that path. Uh, so, um, you can't pooh, uh, pooh that altogether,

Speaker C: right? So no, uh, for uh, elders of the Council of Elders of Zion. But I must say that in fact there is increasing evidence of threats emanating from Israeli actors, including I think a recent University of Toronto Citizens Lab, uh, report about AD based infection techniques developed by Israeli companies. So I will put that aside and take uh, a short break. We will be speaking about real and manufactured national security, uh, threats, uh, next I'm speaking to Rajadato Noshewan Zainal Abidin, Director General of the National Security Council of Malaysia. Keep it here. BFM 89.9.

Speaker B: You're tuned in to the BFM Breakfast Grill with Umobile's Ultra 5G bringing next gen connectivity to Malaysia.

Speaker C: Good morning. If you just joined us, I'm Sharad Kuttin and with me on the breakfast grill is Rajidatta Noshewan Sanl Abiden, Director General of the National Security Council of Malaysia. We're talking about this because of the recent controversy over the uh, banning of the use of the Waze app for civil servants. It's had ramifications. A lot of experts have uh, jumped into the fray Talking about the fact that actually when it comes to navigational apps, all apps need to have a data security and such. Uh, I think the larger question, uh, that is the one of whether we trust government when it says there is a national security threat. And I wonder if there has been a politicization of the very expression national security threat. And I wanted to point to one particular moment in recent times, which is the call by the uh, pre Katha national MP Ranzi Jiden, to use security forces, the army, against refugees, uh, and migrants. And in fact, uh, another MP also talk about refugees being uh, and migrants being kind of ticking time bomb. Is there a distinction that we need to keep in our mind between what are real national security threats, what are policy issues and things that need to be resolved but are not in fact existential in their nature?

Speaker D: Well, you know, we have to. We have a toolkit of uh, instruments that we have uh, to achieve our national security goals. And personally, and I believe that this is the position of the Prime Minister as well, is that um, the tools that we use must um, take into consideration our democratic ideals and not to overdo it. Um, so I very much hesitate, uh, to use the military, uh, for things which they were not designed to do. And I believe that these sentiments are actually shared by the military themselves. Give you a case in point. Um, in the past we had the Internal Security act, um, we could deploy the military, for example, um, for duties like constabulary duties, uh, roadblocks, um, uh, patrol along the borders and taking action on smugglers and things like that. So absent the isa, you don't have a legal framework for that for that anymore. So you have to have another kind of legal basis for that. And which we already have, uh, sorry, which rather we are in, in a very advanced process of doing. So it necessarily means. You

Speaker C: mean a new bill is coming into effect,

Speaker D: new regulations certainly, which will empower the uh, military to take on more constabulatory duties. But at the same time we don't want the military to be uh, given too much powers in that fashion because it's not what they're supposed to do. I mean the training is different, the mindset is different, so on and so forth. Um, so it's bookended by uh, that realization. So, um, at the same time, at the same time, uh, as a National Security Council, we encourage our enforcement agencies to uh, undertake what we call joint operations. So which means that it's the police, the immigration, um, the um, local municipalities, etcetera, um, to together take action against uh, infringements, uh, um, by illegal immigrants or refugees. Because, you know, we're not party to the 1951, uh, convention, so we don't recognize the institution of refugees per se. Um, so that. I think it's a better way of doing it, joint operations, um, because then you would be able to, uh, take action against these people and, um, uh, on a formal legal basis.

Speaker C: Okay, put that aside. I mean, the question of the military, uh, is the refugee situation in Malaysia about 200,000, I believe. Uh, the migrant worker situation. They run our factories and such of, you know, in multiples of millions. Right. About 6 million now, I imagine. Um, are they really a national security threat? Is it because the large numbers or what is it that makes it a threat?

Speaker D: Well, if you look at, uh, we have a comprehensive definition of national security, uh, and one of the things which we are looking, ah, very seriously about is how do you fold the issue of, uh, national resilience into national security? Because increasingly it's one and the same. And, um, I'm working very closely with, among others, uh, Nohi Sham, who's quite a regular on your program.

Speaker C: Okay, the economic adviser to the prime minister. Exactly.

Speaker D: So we're looking at how do we want to fold, uh, issues related to national resilience, just coming out of the experience that we've had as a result of the Straits of Hormuz incident, uh, with, uh, national security. So if you look at the totality of national security plus national resilience, and I'm sure there is an elegant way of. Or elegant word for describing this two phenomenon joined together, which I don't know, which I think we should seriously think about. Uh, then, yes, we have to think about the issue of the large number of foreigners, um, uh, legally or illegally present, uh, in Malaysia.

Speaker C: So our dependency on foreign workers, uh, to run our industries, is, in fact, a vulnerability.

Speaker D: It is a vulnerability. And, uh, it's not only to me, it's not just a question of vulnerability, but very frankly, it is about. It talks about our ability to make our, um, national economy more, uh, sophisticated and more technologically advanced. Because, you know, frankly, from a personal point of view, I think we've become a bit too addicted to, uh, foreign labor. And, um, you know, we're very comfortable with that, uh, with, uh, that way of doing things, which is not necessarily very beneficial, I think.

Speaker C: Okay, so there's a whole question about premium, premature, uh, deindustrialization and the fact that, uh, uh, cheap labor is not allowing for innovation and it's not forcing companies and capital to step up. Okay? That's another question. But I want to just explore the question of dependency. Because when you look at issues like say for instance in August we had a bombing campaign in the deep south. And uh, we were told in the media that, that no militants coming from the, from Thailand had entered into Malaysia and there was increase, um, uh, patrolling. The Regional Border committee was supposed to meet in September. I believe this was part of the thing. But we also are talking about extending the ECRL into Southern Thailand. So we on one hand want interconnect, we want the connectivity, we want the interdependence. Uh, but you're saying that is also a vulnerability. So how do we square this particular circle?

Speaker D: I've come to the conclusion after X number of years in government that there is no such thing as a perfect solution. And even if you think that there is a perfect solution, uh, for now, X number of months or years down the road is going to be far, far from being perfect. Um, I always say that, um, it's a bit like getting married. Um.

Speaker C: Is it?

Speaker D: No, it's a lot like getting married in uh, Las Vegas by a priest dressed as Elvis Presley. Right. It seemed to be a good ide at that time. But I jest, um, on a very, very important issue. So. Well, uh, but the point here is this. There is no perfect solution. There are so many moving factors. It is the best solution that we can come up with at that particular point in time. So the trick is on the one hand you have to balance democratic considerations, which is very important for the PM and for the entire security apparatus, uh, with what is effective and the need to quickly change if the uh, if the situation merits it. Um, so it's a very, very complicated picture, very frankly.

Speaker C: Okay, we're going to come back to that complicated picture after the 8:30 news. We'll be back with more national security and choke points. I'm speaking to Roger Dato Noshe Wanzain Abideen, Director General of the National Security Council of Malaysia. Keep it here. BFM 89.9.

Speaker B: You're tuned in to the BFM Breakfast Grill with you Mobile's Ultra 5G bringing next gen connectivity to Malaysia.

Speaker C: Good morning. If you just joined us, uh, you're listening to an extended edition of the Breakfast Grill. I'm Sharad Kitten and with me is Rajidattanushewan Zain Al Abideen, the Director General of the National Security Council of Malaysia. This, this conversation was precipitated by a recent directive, uh, that civil servants should not use the Waze Navigational app. Um, it brought up a lot of questions around what is national security, uh, do we trust our government when they say there is an imminent threat or that we should be prepared, uh, and make sacrifices? In fact, I think a lot of people are asking what can replace ways. As you said yourself, Dato, it's a really good tool. Right. And so. But we'll put that aside about what comes and fills the gap if it's needed to be put aside for security issues. Now, I want to ask you about other security issues that emanate from our geography. You've mentioned the Straits of Malacca, and you said the Hormuz and the Straits of Malacca, not the same. Right. Um, but there is the question of the South China Sea. And I believe, uh, former Malaysian Ambassador Ilango Krapunan has raised the issue of the Balabak island base. It's part of the US China strategic rivalry question that of course is rising. Washington, ah, Manila recently deepened their military cooperation under the 2023 Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement. Um, and, uh, the EDCA, as it were, is one of its sites is located in Balabac, just 50 km off the coast of Sabah. Is this a source of concern for you?

Speaker D: Uh, we've been assured by both the Americans and the Filipinos that, uh, at the very highest levels as well, that this is not directed at Malaysia. Um, and there is no reason to dispute that's certainly their intention. But as I mentioned to you before, intention is not as important as effect. Um, so you can't discount the possibility that, uh, the position of both governments change. Uh, I mean, the US and the Philippines change as a result of, uh, different circumstances, uh, which are. And the permutations and combinations are too many to think of. But, uh, you can't discount the possibility that the situation may change in such a way that, uh, the Filipinos, uh, especially in the future, are uh, incentivized to use their capabilities on um, Balaba, uh, island in a way that is detrimental to our interests. So, uh, obviously we have to do something about it. I mean, it's not as though we need to go to war with any of them. I think it's probably, probably crazy. And certainly this is the furthest thing from our minds, both, both three parties. But, uh, you know, we have to undertake the necessary steps in order to ensure that this doesn't, this doesn't happen. So that's as far as what the, what can happen between states. Uh, we can't also discount the possibility that uh, with these developments, it may embolden, uh, the people who mean us harm, the non state, uh, actors who mean us harm. In 2013, we had the incident in Lahad Datu, etc. So, you know, we can't discount the possibility that they may be emboldened to do this, that or the other as a result of this change in, uh, situation because of the, uh, presence of the military in Malabar Island.

Speaker C: Okay. I want to ask you though. So the main scenarios, as you say, including maybe escalation of, uh, you know, great power rivalry, us, China, and then we will get entangled in it. The question is on our side whether we are, uh, prepared militarily. And I know this is a question that's global now, increasing defence spending, uh, we didn't see that in this year's budget. Uh, I think defence spending has kind of plateaued for several years. Do you think, uh, you know, not so much about joining the arms race, but do you think Malaysia needs to think very seriously about our defence spending?

Speaker D: Yeah, I do.

Speaker C: Is it adequate at this point in time? I

Speaker D: mean, the government has, uh, a plan to increase, sorry, defence spending up to 1.5%, um, by 2030, which I think is quite low, very frankly. Um, uh, but, you know, we need to spend, um, as much money as possible as wisely as possible as well. And again, you know, because Malaysia is a, uh, very complicated country internally and the external situation is also equally complicated. Uh, so even in this case, it's also bookended by the fact that, you know, we are right smack in the middle of, uh, Southeast Asia. Um, we are the only country which sits astride the Straits of Malacca, uh, the South China Sea, and now increasingly the Straits of, uh, uh, uh, Straits of Balabak as well. So we, uh, have a very high strategic value. Right. And PM also mentioned that the reality is that we have contested borders with all of our neighbors. So, um, uh,

Speaker C: many of them resolved. Right. Recently with Indonesia. With

Speaker D: Indonesia, yeah. But, but they're still there. I mean, uh, um, even with, Even with. Even with Singapore, even with Brunei, uh, and when I say even, it's not because of anything else, but because those countries are much smaller than our, than our other neighbors, we still have unresolved, uh, border issues. So now, uh, given the fact that, you know, we are right smacked in, uh, the middle of, um, a very expensive real estate, to use a metaphor, and which is contested, the borders, the option of, let's say Malaysia spending, uh, 4.5% or 5% of our GDP is not, uh, an option which is open to us, I think, because one you cannot have a fortress in Malaysia, uh, by sheer geography alone, uh, unless you're willing to spend, uh, I'm not sure, 9, 10% of our GDP on defence, which I don't think is politically acceptable. Um, and were we to spend even 4.5 to 5% if the announcement were made, I think on Monday, I think more or less on Wednesday or Thursday, we'll have an arms race in the region. But, uh, security can come from different forms as well. Um, it is, in the end it is about ensuring that the cost of attacking Malaysia is far higher than the benefits, uh, that they may gain. Now the cost can come in very many ways, right? So, uh, let's just say worst case scenario, uh, Malaysia goes the way of Somalia, becomes a failed state. I firmly believe that this will have global implications. It will have global implications if something were to happen to Malaysia in that way. So I think the entire world actually has a very strong incentive to make sure that Malaysia is strong, prosperous and stable. Um, and to change that metric, uh, would be costly for any country because, um, other countries will be affected, uh, will be affected as well.

Speaker C: So we want people to be invested in our success and our stability.

Speaker D: Exactly. So that's why, uh, we have to have, uh, very, very good relations with China, very, very good relations with, uh, America as well, as well as with our immediate neighbours. And I think generally the government is doing a good job in making sure that uh, we're able to balance all of these competing interests.

Speaker C: What, what do you think could destabilize this? I mean, if you were to kind of paint a kind of black swan moment for Malaysia and want the country to be prepared for it, what would it look like to you?

Speaker D: I think for Malaysia, the external threat, although it's something which we need to uh, consistently keep an eye on, I mean the price of security is eternal vigilance. Um, but very frankly my main worry is an ideational one, which is Malaysians themselves are not invested in this idea of Malaysia. Uh, you know, in the idea of Malaysia, which is, uh, multi ethnic, which is, uh, democratic, which is united. And you know, we can take these things very easily for granted. You see all the crazy stuff that you see posted on social media. I mean, on the one hand, um, I suspect it's because people have a certain level of comfort that this is what Malaysia is all about and this is what Malaysia is always going to be. But at the same time you can't take these things for granted. Right? Because, you know, if you have enough people who spew uh, hate speech and very funny ideas about the very foundations of what Malaysia is all about. And there is not a pushback from the vast majority of Malaysians. Then people think that this is, you know, this is how it is and this is a, ah, normalization, uh, against this very idea of what Malaysia is. I mean very frankly, this is what I worry about the most.

Speaker C: Okay, very quickly you can just squeeze in one last question. This is about the federal nature of our state and we know there are already tensions around uh, Ma63 and such. Do you see deepening federalism? I mean uh, economic federalism? I think the sg, uh, four states of the country, of the peninsula have been advocating. Do you see that as pulling us apart?

Speaker D: Well, you know, I think it's not a question of so much pulling us apart. It's a question of reaffirming and strengthening um, uh, the legal basis of the arrangements between the federal level and the state government. I mean in the case of the Peninsula, um, Malaysia, you have the Federation of Malaya agreement. I think that's it. And in the case of Sabah, that's MA63. And PM has consistently said it is about giving effect to this grand bargain which our forefathers signed. And it's all. It's a question of giving effect to a legal instrument, very frankly.

Speaker C: Thank you. Uh, Dato, we should have you back soon to talk about these issues and more. Uh, thanks for joining us this morning.

Speaker D: Thank you. Always a pleasure.

Speaker C: I've been speaking to Raja Dato Noshirwan Azayn Al Abidean, the Director General of the National Security Council of Malaysia. That's all we have for you on the Breakfast Grill today. Keep it here. BFM 89.9.

Speaker B: That was the BFM UM Breakfast Grill brought to you by Umobile Ultra 5G, powering next gen possibilities with Malaysia's widest 5G network.

Speaker A: You have been listening to A podcast from BFM 89.9, the Business Station. For more stories of the same kind, download the BFM appliance.