Building Security on The – Border: The Case of The –Sg. Golok Sector Dalilah Aziz Ariarasa Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jatswan Singh RESEARCH BACKGROUND

. Most porous borderline in the northern region – focus Rantau Panjang – Sg. Golok Sector • lengthy borderline, unfortified nature, integrated of border culture • border is vulnerable – resulting to the growing of border crimes • poses threats to Malaysian national security

. Reinforcing border security • The Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) in October 2013 reinforced security agenda – intends to build 121km permanent wall in • National Security Council (NSC) detected 130 illegal jetty - change of modus operandi • Malaysia foresee a new border agency - Agensi Kawalan Sempadan Malaysia (AKSEM) PROBLEM STATEMENT

• Current scenario – The border is vulnerable to evolving threats from the deep south Thailand conflict, the smuggling and extremist activities.

• Destabilizing condition – Government exercised a relax border policy since the end of communist era in 1989, balancing between security and economy.

• Consequences - Fostering illicit border culture and increases threat to Malaysian national security (territory, sovereignty, economy and societal). Example of threats.

3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

• To examine the nature of threats along the Rantau Panjang – Sg. Golok border sector.

• To investigate the reason for enhancing border security in this sector.

• To analyze the challenges encountered by Malaysian government.

4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• What are the threats fostering the insecurity of the Rantau Panjang – Sg. Golok border sector?

• Why is there a need to enhance security at the border sector?

• What are the challenges in enhancing the security at this sector?

5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

• Previous studies in the field of border security in Malaysia are quite limited to the areas of border demarcation, economy, human trafficking and drugs - no emphasis given on why and how government prioritize border security issues.

• The choice of border sector and timeframe stipulates the distinction of the border sector – it’s unfortified and clandestine nature draws variety of transnational crime threats.

• Contributes to the empirical studies in securitization specifically border security.

6 LR 1: The Debate in Border Studies

Authors Key Debates Value to Research Julian Minghi (1963) Classic view: 1900 – 1960s Social sciences:- summarized – Ellen Churchill, • Borders are man made • Borders are Thomas Holdich & William • view from singular perspective – geographical, boundary dynamic, Lyde, Nicholas Spykman demarcation, state power, economic equilibrium – complex and a boundaries are static & deterministic constructed process, - Emmanuel Brunnet – Jailly Cotemporary view: 1980s to present incorporated (2009), David Newman (2003 • Involve state, non-state, citizens etc; it is nurtured based many discipline & 2006), Van Schendel (2014), on social practices of daily life to understand its Ansi Paasi (1999) • Globalization age - transboundary cooperation phenomena

Anna Moraczewska (2010) • Type of border from three IR approaches; realism, • Border roles has liberalism and globalism expanded align Peter Andreas (2003) • State remain main actor in realism framework but with security continuously progress to include more functions of border studies under Mark Salter (2011) • Three border roles; formal (defence), practical (filters) and the paradigm of See link popular (people negotiate the meaning of border) IR

7 LR 2: Border Porosity & Illicit Space

Authors Key Debates Value to Research Louise I. Shelly Factors influencing vulnerability of borders The causal and effect (2006) towards transnational crime. represents the character of the border sector Emmanuel Brunet- Common key ideas: Brunet - The more it Jailly (2007) • Borders are naturally porous (Brunet-Jailly) integrates, the more porous • Illicitness are part of the state (Schendel) the border become thus Willem van Schendel requires government to and Itty Abraham integrate their policies. (2005) Differences: • Brunet – the interaction of elements determine border porosity. Schendel - when illegal (state view) dominates, it produces • Schendel - the distinct between legal/licit and illicit spaces; borderland and illegal/ illicitness perception of the state and underground – which require border community. reinforcement of securitization process. 8 LR 3 – Building Security at Borders: Critical Security Studies Perspectives

Authors Key Ideas Value to Research Mark B. Salter (2011) Terrorist threats has shaped US – Canada border control • US-Canada-Mexico is policy. the touchstone to Jason Ackleson (2004) Examines US-Mexico border security issues namely understand migration, drugs and terrorism, argued security is a international borders. relative issue. • Issues non traditional Eric Tagliacozzo (2001) There is a correlation between liberalizing borders and threats emerged as increased of contraband activities in SEA countries. subject of border Ralf Emmers (2004) Examine the conduct of securitizing drug trafficking in security studies since Thailand under Thaksin premiership. Sept 11, 2001 attacks. Kevin McGahan Discuss how migration issues in Malaysia has impacted (2009) societal security resulting government to increase • Border security should immigration control. receive wider treatment – building Mika Toyota (2006) Analyze stateless minorities in Burma – Thai borderland perceptions and and how the Thai government portray it as a societal consequences See link security threats to Thai nationals. 9 LR4 – The Case Study of Malaysia – Thailand Borderline / Rantau Panjang – Sg. Golok Border Sector Authors Key Ideas Value to Research Fauzi Hussin, Norehan Smuggling through Golok river is a continuous • Social network plays Abdullah, Hussin Abdullah & threat a vital role in Selamah Maamor (2013) producing illicitness Ruhanas Harun (2009) Malaysia is regard as ‘receiver’ of issues due to its at the border sector. strategic geography, in the center of SEA. • The border is strongly Takamura, Kazue (2004) The borderline is a ‘living space’ instead of ‘divided integrated - places’. transform the border Nisakorn Klanarong, (2012- Social network plays a major role in migration from to a living space. 2014) to Malaysia. Pornpan Khemakunasai The border community negotiate with the law and Weakness: (2014) depend on social networks to smuggle rice. Empirical studies are general. Limited Amitav Acharya (May 1990) M-T border cooperation was the earliest in ASEAN literature is found on the to cope with range of security threats specifically case study. See link communist insurgents.

10 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK : The Securitization Process

Copenhagen School Justification: Assumption Something is a security problem when its uttered by elites - speech act. Reflect the Purpose of To understand process of securitization – who securitized, how (means) objectives of analysis and to what effects/ what it does study – to Tools Discourse analysis - linguistic (text) understand Criticism • Over emphasis on securitizing actor – gives privileges to politician - the process of abuse of power (Deudney 1990, Collins 2013, Williams 2003) securitization • The concept dismiss the bureaucratic routines and effects of power that are continuous (Bigo 2002, Huysmans 2006, Balzacq 2008) Malaysia • Emphasizing on speech act is too rigid (Williams 2003, Stritzel 2007, ruling system – requires Mc Donald 2008) politician to • Extraordinary measures were not well defined (Collins 2013) moves issues • Concept of audience should receive more attention (Floyd 2011, Balzacq 2005, 2015, Mc Donald 2008, Salter 2011) * Link

11 The Securitization Process

Causes and Issues Consequences Securitization (LR 1 & 2) (LR 3 &4)

Why and how securitization process takes place? Impact and changes Causes and effects of What it does? on policy, strategy, border porosity & enforcement illicitness operations by This is the gap government this research intend to fulfill

12 RESEARCH METHODHOLOGY

Nature Qualitative Why Discourse Analysis? o Widely used in social Method Discourse Analysis: constructionism & by • Applying Juha A. Vuori tools to examine securitization scholars - sequential speech acts of claim, warn and based on the ontology & request in the securitization process epistemology of the • Interview : MOHA, AKSEM & RMP research

o An analysis of what Type of Data • Primary – groundwork interviews people ‘say’ and ‘act’ – a • Secondary – government official documents study of language in texts and speeches, news, books, journals, and conversation. dissertation o It helps to build interpretation.

13 SCOPE & LIMITATIONS

Scope • Timeline: focus of securitization process will be from Oct 2013 – Aug 2017 • Case Study: The Rantau Panjang – Sg. Golok Sector

Limitations • Inaccessibility to interviews • Confidential government documents – eg: White papers, Memorandum of Cabinet and policy papers • Overcome: source triangulation – data from primary sources will be used to verify any glitches found through the analysis of the securitization process

14 CHAPTERIZATION

Chapter 1 - Introduction (Problem Statement, Literature Review, Importance and Thesis Overview) Chapter 2 - Theoretical Framework & Methodology (Securitization Framework, Methodology, Tools, Sources of Data)

Chapter 3 - The Rantau Panjang – Sg. Golok Border Threats (Background of Case Study, Early Development & Evolution of Threats) Chapter 4 - The Discourse on Securitization of The Rantau Panjang – Sg. Golok Border Sector (Discourse on the Securitization Process) Chapter 5 - Current Phase of Securitization (Analysis of government measures and challenges) Chapter 6 - Conclusion

15 FINDINGS

RQ1: What are the threats fostering the insecurity of the border sector? (Chapter 3) • Clandestine nature of the Sg. Golok river and the integrated borderland acts as primary enabling factor to the evolution of threats. • The deep south conflict - prolonged and unresolved, uncertainty trends, multi causes o poses international boundary risk; the weakest point in Thailand; attracts the breeding of terrorism and other border crimes. • The smuggling activities (Small Arms Light Weapons (SALW), narcotics, migrants etc) possessed the biggest threat o transformation of smuggling habits influenced by internal and external factor • Emergent trend of extremist exploiting the border sector as their new playground o exploited the weakest point of space - south of Thailand, Myanmar and Malaysia -Thailand borderline o growing cases of extremist at the border, established cells and collaboration with locals and foreign syndicates from Thailand. • The threats at the border are interdependent yet isolated in execution o Whilst they presented a different degree of impact, they cannot be viewed remotely - every element and factors are interconnected and contribute to the chain reactions of effects

16 FINDINGS

RQ2: Why is there a need to enhance security at the border sector?(Chapter 4)

• The discourse revealed that the DPM as the main actor are supported by various secondary and functional actors throughout the securitization process.

• The smuggling (SALW, narcotics and migrants) and extremist activities were evident and has dominated the discourse; the deep south conflict was absent from this process.

• Both threats were securitized interchangeably and framed as single image of security concern - validating threats are correlated and real thus triggered a threatening situation - intensify Malaysian national insecurity

• Consistent politicization between 2013 to 2017 was constructed to reprioritized national security policy.

• Prolonged securitization process – counter measures has been institutionalized rather than adhoc. o Border wall, AKSEM, AKSEM Act 2017, POTA and SMATA Act 2015 FINDINGS

RQ3: What are the challenges in enhancing the security at this sector? (Chapter 5)

• Institutionalization of counter measures proved that the existing measures were irrelevant or insufficient to curtail the evolving threats at the border

• Government moves from a diverse to a concerted approach; o AKSEM and AKSEM Act 2017 o POTA and SMATA Act 2015

• Challenges – the securitization may have address half of the problem; o AKSEM - synchronizing SOPs, building a single image of border authority, limited resources, funds etc. o Extremism - Malaysia are squeezed between 3 active conflict zones, advance technology is an obstacle in intelligence, growing online sympathizers.

• Failure to build a border wall; o An aggressive strategy but not feasible 18 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

• This study asserted that an integrated borderland increases national insecurity thus forcing states to consistently securitized and de-securitized its policies to manage the level of threats.

• The securitization framework aimed to address subjective phenomena and processes embedded in building security agenda at the border sector. This was accomplished in Chapter 2.

• In Chapter 3, the study validate that the deep south Thailand conflicts, smuggling and extremist activities are the main threats and has cohesively and greatly fostered insecurity of the border sector.

• In Chapter 4, the study shows how the integrated entity has elevated border and national insecurity thus motivates the government to reinforce security by way of fortification and strengthened border controls.

• In Chapter 5, the study emphasizes that Malaysian government possess a strong political will to execute multiple counter strategies successfully. CONCLUSION

• In conclusion, this study shows that an integrated government structural activities is the outcome from the perpetuated political discourse by Malaysian government to build a security agenda at the border sector to achieve broader impact of national security.

• This study also concluded that, despite being divided as a borderline, this border sector continues to create and recreated a complex context of an undivided space which ultimately challenges Malaysian security, territory and sovereignty.

• The border sector context eventually depicts government prioritization and balancing acts in recreating the role of security and economy at the borderline.

20 IMPLIKASI KE ATAS DASAR-DASAR KERAJAAN

• The case study provides:

• Previous study limited - an understanding of border phenomena from the perspective of social science. • Provide an assessment to practitioners (MOHA, MINDEF, NSC and relevant agencies) of why the border sector is the most porous in Malaysian context. • Provide circumstances of how border elements is utilized to manage to minimize effects of porosity.