Not every act of violence is terrorism — Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid

The recent High Court verdict acquitting a 15-year-old of murder due to insanity should remind us not to hastily label violent acts as terrorism, extremism or nihilism. The tragic incident underscores the principle that a violent act's brutality doesn't determine its legal classification; it can be shocking without being extremist.

This distinction matters as there's a growing tendency to interpret serious youth violence through the lens of extremism. Treating 'nihilism' as an ideology risks meaningless boundaries for extremism. Any unexplained violence shouldn't be automatically classified as extremism or terrorism. Terrorism requires clear evidence of an ideological connection and a legal basis, not just a violent act.

Malaysia has previously faced similar issues with Jemaah Islamiyah and IS threats, where not everyone at an event subscribed to the ideology. A child exhibiting disturbing behavior may need psychiatric help, while another might be experiencing trauma or social alienation. Another scenario could be a serious crime, or genuine ideological radicalisation.

All these are not the same. Collapsing them into violent extremism risks replacing proper diagnosis and intervention with securitisation. The court's responsibility extends to the accused's mental capacity and legal responsibility, not just the act itself. The same discipline should apply to terrorism. Violence doesn't automatically make an act terrorism, nor does a troubled youth become an extremist.

The absence of ideology shouldn't become an ideology itself. While tragic, the school killing demands serious reflection, but we must resist securitising what we don't understand. Mislabeling could lead to improper responses with far-reaching consequences.