In September 2025, the National Security Council (MKN) reported that a Petronas employee received an SMS threat from an Indonesian-registered number, warning of a potential attack on the Bintulu LNG facility in Sarawak. In response, MKN immediately ordered heightened security measures around the plant. Petronas reassured the public that operations remained unaffected.
At first glance, some might dismiss it as “just an SMS,” questioning why a single message could trigger a national security response. However, this incident underscores a key principle: threats to critical infrastructure, regardless of their source, must be treated with utmost caution to prevent economic disruption, public fear, and psychological impact.
Related post: Bintulu LNG Threat: What We Know So Far About the Petronas Security Alert
Understanding the Perpetrator’s Goal
Currently, the nature of the motivation, the intended recipient, and what the sender wanted in exchange have not been revealed.
On the surface, it does appear that a single SMS triggered a national security response, with headlines across Malaysia and even in the international press. From one angle, the perpetrator has already succeeded in creating disruption, fear, and uncertainty, without lifting a finger beyond sending a text.
If the goal was simply to sow chaos, attract media attention, and provoke a heavy-handed response, then the objective has been achieved. Typically, a genuine attempt to damage a facility would not come with prior warning.
The cost to execute such a response is almost nothing. However, the impact is national-level security mobilization, which can be financially costly and time consuming for the government.
Why the Reaction Seems “Over the Top”
In security doctrine, threats against critical national infrastructure are treated as strategic risks.
The Bintulu LNG complex is among the world’s largest, producing close to 30 million tons annually. It plays a critical role in meeting Asia-Pacific LNG demand, and any disruption could send shockwaves through global markets, driving prices upward. LNG revenues are also crucial for Malaysia’s fiscal stability. An attack, whether successful or not, could harm exports and shake investor confidence.
The incident also falls into overlapping categories in security studies: terrorist threats, threat hoaxes, and asymmetric psychological operations (PSYOPs). zbally, even inexpensive “threats” have historically demanded costly responses. After the 2005 London bombings, hoax threats via calls and suspicious packages led to station closures and mass train evacuations. In 2015, a bomb threat against Japan’s Shinkansen forced platform shutdowns and delays. In New York, a 2018 fake bomb threat prompted train evacuations at 59th Street–Columbus Circle station.
This is not unprecedented. Airports, subways, and power plants worldwide face similar “cheap threats” that still demand expensive responses. Even a simple SMS bomb hoax can lead to full-scale response or evacuations.
After the 7/7 London bombings in 2005, several hoax threats were made via phone calls and suspicious packages, causing station closures and mass train evacuations. In 2015, a bomb threat against the Shinkansen (bullet train) forced evacuations and delays, though nothing was found.
The NYPD Transit Bureau regularly responds to bomb threats involving phone calls, SMS or unattended bags. In 2018, a fake bomb threat forced evacuation at the 59th Street-Columbus Circle station. Passengers were ordered off trains, and platforms were shut down, despite the threat being a hoax.
Unlike those cases, the Bintulu LNG facility did not issue an evacuation. However, MKN quickly strengthened security protocols, and police launched investigations with state contingents mobilized to secure the premises. The Malaysian Marine Department (MMD) also raised security measures to Level 2 at Bintulu port, demonstrating proactive steps to protect critical infrastructure.
Balancing Perception and Necessity
While some may view the response as disproportionate, strategic caution is essential when protecting critical national infrastructure. The Bintulu incident demonstrates that even seemingly minor threats can prompt significant operational and security mobilization. For authorities, the priority remains clear: safeguarding the facility, ensuring uninterrupted LNG production, and maintaining public confidence, objectives that outweigh concerns about whether the reaction appears “over the top.”
However, the way the government conveys information to the public is equally important. Instead of sending vague messages, communications should be clear, detailed, and transparent to prevent confusion or unnecessary panic.