Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 64.
“Sir, may I first respond to some of the points raised by the Members?”
“If Mr Steve Chia had listened to my answer clearly, he would have known that I said that such biometric technology evolves and is fast changing. At that time in 1997, fingerprint recognition seemed to be the better alternative, iris technology was still quite new. And now we have a new one too called facial recognition. All these systems change all the time. When we decided to do the IACS in 1997, we decided that it was a good system to be implemented in both the land and airport checkpoints, and it served our purpose. There is no waste of money. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question (28th February, 2003), "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 2003 to 31st March, 2004.". - [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. Question again proposed. 11.26 am”
“The trials at the Woodlands and Tuas Checkpoints cost about $300,000 each. SIR is now evaluating the results of the trial which seem to be quite encouraging. Singapore is not the only country that is exploring the latest biometrics technology to enhance security. Under the current security situation, countries such as the United States, Australia, Japan are also on the lookout for advanced biometrics technology for deployment at their checkpoints.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Steve Chia asked why the Singapore Immigration and Registration is developing and testing an iris recognition system when the Immigration Automated Clearance System (IACS) is working effectively. Let me begin by explaining what the IACS is about. The IACS is an automated immigration clearance system that leverages on biometric technology to identify the travellers. The fingerprint of the traveller is stored in a smart card and then used to match the actual live fingerprint presented by the traveller during immigration clearance. ICAS not only does away with the need for an immigration officer to man each clearance counter, it also enhances security. The IACS is not a new system, as Mr Steve Chia seems to suggest. It was first implemented at Changi Airport in 1997. It was extended to Tuas and Woodlands Checkpoints in 1998 and 1999 respectively for bus travellers. The cost of implementing the ICAS is $13 million. We have not implemented the ICAS for motorcyclists after a trial in 1999, because the total clearance time could not meet our operational requirement. Sir, biometrics technology is a fast evolving field. International research has shown that iris recognition, which works by scanning and matching the human iris pattern, has a very high level of accuracy and is faster compared to fingerprint matching. Hence, SIR decided to conduct an iris recognition trial for about 3,000 motorcyclists on a voluntary basis at the land checkpoints from June to December last year to test the feasibility of implementing it on a full scale for the motorcycle lanes. This will not only reduce manpower, but more importantly, it will also enhance the level of security without increasing the clearance time.”
“There were 87, 41 and 43 substantiated* cases of crime committed against Foreign Domestic Workers (FDWs) in 2000, 2001 and 2002 respectively. These crimes include serious hurt, simple assault and outraging of modesty. Prior to 2001, Police did not maintain separate statistics for offences committed by employers against their FDWs. In 2001, in 14 of the 41 substantiated cases, the employers or members of their household were the offenders. The offenders in 8 out of these 14 cases were prosecuted and the offenders in the remaining cases were warned. In 2002, in 19 of the 43 substantiated cases, the employers or members of their household were the offenders and all were prosecuted. The common forms of abuse as alleged in the Police's reports include slapping, kicking and pinching. Data requested on part (c) (i), (d) and (e) of the question are not available as such statistics are currently not maintained. * The offenders in these cases include the employer or his family members as well as other persons known or unknown to the FDW. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND 3. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) if he will provide a breakdown of how the total funds kept with the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board are invested and what are their investment returns; (b) what is the amount of interest the CPF Board is getting from the Housing and Development Board and what is the amount of interest the CPF Board is paying on the members' accounts; and (c) what is the proportion of Singaporeans who have a CPF balance greater than their property loan and vice versa.”
“The Canadian passport contains 24 or 48 pages with allowance for an additional 10 pages to be added on. The US passport holds 24 pages with allowance for another 24 pages to be added on. The Singapore passport contains 96 pages. This is more than the number of pages in the Canadian and US passports (even with the additional pages added) as well as the passports of many other countries. Our experience shows that only approximately 10% of the number of applications for passport renewal is due to the pages being used up before the passport's 10-year validity period expires. Hence, for the majority of Singaporeans, the 96 pages are more than sufficient to meet their travel needs. MAID ABUSE 2. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Minister for Home Affairs in the last three years (2000, 2001, 2002), (a) how many cases of maid abuse were filed with the police; (b) what were the forms of abuse (eg. slaps, scaldings) recorded in police reports; (c) of these recorded cases how many were (i) withdrawn by the maids and (ii) prosecuted; (d) how many of these reported cases were initiated by doctors who had examined the maids; and (e) what is the demographical profile of those who were 'accused'.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I move the motion of adjournment, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present here to move a motion that Parliament sits on Saturday, 25th January 2003.”
“Resolved, That this House (a) acknowledges that the terrorist threat to Singapore is real and serious; (b) supports the firm actions the Government has taken against the threat to the security of Singapore posed by the Jemaah Islamiyah group and other militant and extremist groups in the region; and, (c) endorses the recommendations put forth in the White Paper on The Jemaah Islmiyah Arrests and the Threat of Terrorism, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 2003, to counter the terrorist threat by (i) enhancing the security measures; (ii) policing the spread of terrorist and extremist ideology; and, (iii) strengthening our social cohesion and religions harmony. SITTING ON SATURDAY, 25TH JANUARY 2003 (Business Motion)”
“But we must by no means be intimidated. We must be vigilant, but not paranoid. We must live with courage and not be cowed. The White Paper has given us an opportunity to publicly discuss sensitive issues of race and religion. In the face of adversity, there is also a valuable opportunity to galvanise and mobilise our ethnic communities to affirm and strengthen our values of mutual tolerance and communal trust. This we must do. There has, in fact, been a whole new energy in inter-ethnic engagements following September 11, and the JI episodes. There is support of effort by the Government, like the IRCC, but just as encouraging, there have also been initiatives by the various ethnic and religious groups on their own to reach out, make contacts and enhance interactions and understanding, whether it be by way of mutual visits to places of worship, or small group discussions on religious practices and values. As Mdm Ho Geok Choo said, this congruence between the efforts from the top and the efforts from below in our society is important, because the quality of inter-ethnic relations cannot be decreed by the Government, or willed by the creation of formal structures, but must ultimately be fleshed by the substantive participation and involvement of ordinary citizens in their daily interactions and contact with each other as they go about their daily lives. They must take a personal responsibility to promote inter-racial interactions. They must reach out to one another. If we continue to nurture mutual trust and attachment in the relations between our communities, I am confident that we will prevail over the terrorist threat and a peaceful multi-ethnic Singapore as we know it today will survive and continue for generations to come. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Or worse, is this reason for anyone to cynically dismiss the findings of a team of psychologists, counsellers, professional investigators, and the detainees themselves, about the motivation of the JI detainees? We must not legitimise the JI terrorists as some kind of a victim of society. Whatever the case that may be in countries elsewhere, this is not the case here. If this theory of marginalisation is correct, then how do we account for the highly educated, and successful professional people, with PhDs, graduate qualifications and some from western universities and businessmen in the leadership of the Malaysian Jemaah Islamiyah organisation, which our JI network is subordinate to? And these leaders are the product of an affirmative action policy, the bumiputra policy which favours them. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on social cohesion, and especially inter-ethnic harmony, we have done well. The fact that we can discuss such issues candidly in this House is one's reflection of the greater confidence and maturity. However, this is not to say that there is no room for growth in the strength of our social cohesion and the quality and the depth of our inter-ethnic relations. Far from it. Otherwise, we would not have made it a key recommendation in this White Paper. Bonding our people and nurturing social cohesion is a perpetual and continuing enterprise. It is always dynamic, which means it can either grow stronger or weaker, over time, depending on what we do as a people. We must therefore jealously guard what we have achieved and build on the accumulated social capital of trust that the last 30 years of communal peace have afforded us. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope that we come out of this debate more sober and clear eyed over the terrorist threat that we are now facing.”
“But, as Dr Wang Kai Yuen rightly observed, we have not stood still and we have come some way, and there is still a long way to go in this journey of nation building. The strength of ethnic harmony in Singapore today has allowed us sufficient confidence to discuss the difficult issues related to the threats of terrorism in a mature, rational and balanced manner. This has characterised our dialogues with the community, and I am glad that it has also been largely reflected in this debate. I was particularly impressed and taken by the stout rejections by several MPs, like Mr Hawazi and Dr Wang Kai Yuen, of the caricature of the Malay community as an under-performing, discriminated, ethnic group, who needs a handout by way of affirmative actions in order to succeed. They argued, rationally, on the basis of the fact and rightly collected feedback and not on some individual perceptions and loose anecdotes. Two MPs mentioned that there are issues still to be resolved in our ethnic community which are relevant to social cohesion. I agree. Because ours is not a perfect society. None is. The important thing is that in our society, if a person has a genuine problem, he has effective avenues for redress, including resorting to the law for protection and support. Are there individuals who have grievances in our society? Of course, there must be. Every society has its share of them. Are there problems and issues in the Malay community? Obviously there are. Not just in the Malay community, but in every community. There are some who perceive that they are discriminated because of their age or their gender, too. But, does this amount to marginalisation of an entire community outweighing all the facts which tell us otherwise?”
“While we can continue to enhance the dialogue between ethnic communities in order to deepen inter-communal bond, the effort, although important, is not enough. Singapore is too small a country to afford the coming of a society where we can have any community withdrawing into its own cocoon and living separate and cut off from the rest. Commitment and participation in the common secular space is vital, so that all Singaporeans, regardless of ethnicity, are collectively anchored and engaged in defining a national space where the Singaporean identity is rooted. These are considerations which must guide the conduct of all communities, even as they pursue the developments of ethnic issues close to their hearts. Singaporeans can be both pious Muslims, Buddhists, Christians or Hindus, and good citizens at the same time. To be both, they need to be able to appreciate the line between the obligation as citizens and their duties as religious faithfuls. Although the strengthening of social cohesion and religious harmony is a stable and vital part of our nation building, the current threat of terrorism raises the subject more urgently in our consciousness today. In a way, the JI arrests are a wake-up call for all Singaporeans. The current threat of terrorism has the real potential of unravelling what we have achieved and fracturing our communal relations which, even when mended, will be permanently scarred and never quite the same again. Singapore's state of social cohesion is a dynamic and evolving one over the last 37 years. It does not start or end with the White Paper. As Ms Indranee Rajah noted, there are echoes of the past surfacing in this debate because the issues of race and religion in a society such as ours are deeply embedded and are perennial concerns.”
“In an ethnically plural society, the secular state is centred upon a common civic space which can bind all the ethnic communities. This space is determined significantly by the separation of politics and religion. If we allow politics and religion to be mixed, we will be brewing a very powerful amalgam, which will pit one ethnic group against another in ceaseless political competition. Sir, as Prof. Chin and other MPs argued in this debate, the secular state which rests on the condition of keeping politics and religion separate, is not just good, but necessary for Singapore's survival. It allows each community to pursue its ethnic interest, so long as it does not undermine the political cohesion as a centre. No single community can push for the maximum space for itself without restraint and not expect a reaction from the other communities. I agree with my colleague, Dr Yaacob, that in Singapore we must achieve unity in diversity. The stronger the bonds at the centre, the deeper the level of inter-communal tolerance and trust, the greater the space for diversity for each community. No single community can grow beyond what the whole society can accommodate at any point in time. The alternative to this arrangement is an unmediated free-for-all political society, where every community self-centredly pushes for maximum space. In such a situation, the majority community will eventually subjugate, overwhelm the minorities, and communal conflict and competition will inevitably be the order of the day. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, several MPs spoke about the need to develop and expand dialogue and the common space among the communities. Indeed, this is what we have been practising all these years since independence.”
“In fact, the Singapore JI is only a district-level unit of the Malaysian Jemaah Islamiyah branch, whose leaders are in Malaysia. We need our Muslim MPs, ulamas, asatizahs and community leaders, therefore, to be united, in providing a clear direction to the community to counter and reject extremism, extremists and terrorist ideology. They should set aside their individual interests and differences and come together to face the common threat with determination and perseverance. As Mr Ahmad Khalis explained, our Muslim leaders have an important role, not just to guide the Muslim community, but also to correct erroneous perceptions of Islam which may be purveyed by the ill-informed. In addition, they must help to turf out the dangerous few, who, as Mr Heng Chee How argued, purvey extremist ideology even as they hide within, and prey on our larger Muslim community. As my colleague, Dr Yaacob, put it, every myopic, extremist or radical view must be challenged and exposed. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, tackling the third presentation in the White Paper of strengthening our social cohesion and religious harmony is a fundamental and on-going enterprise in our nation-building, which preceded the terrorist threat, and which will continue even after it is over. Every country needs to form some conception of the kind of society it wants to be. For Singapore, since its independence, this has been that of a secular multi-ethnic meritocratic nation state. This is the best political structure, which ensures that our various ethnic communities, regardless of their numerical size, can be equally assured of enough space to thrive, promote and pursue their religion and culture in relative freedom.”
“Indeed, efforts are always ongoing to expand the level and extent of cooperation and exchanges within the region. Frankly speaking, this may be easier said in the case of some established domains, eg, intelligence and exchange and perhaps, more challenging, in newer areas, such as collective action. On our part, we are committed to giving all practical assistance to our foreign partners who are serious in fighting this terrorist threat. This has included, and will continue to include, access to our detainees, where they are relevant to the cases under investigation or prosecution by these foreign governments. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to translate into action the second recommendation of policing against terrorist and extremist ideology, our Muslim leaders from the various organisations will have to work closely together in a consultative and open manner. They must ensure that their efforts are understood by the community at large, and not in any way be seen to undermine the legitimate religious pursuits and interests within the community. We must get our focus right. As Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed rightly concluded, this is an ideological battle, and Muslim Singaporeans must not allow themselves to be subverted and be a party or proxy to such threats by terrorists. The Jemaah Islamiyah detainees are not marginalised individuals driven by a deep sense of grievance against Singapore society or by the feeling of discrimination and oppression in Singapore. They were driven by the misguided belief in the vision of a Daulah Islamiyah - an Islamic regional state - to be achieved by revolutionary force. The centre of their regional Islamic state is not Singapore, but Indonesia.”
“And I agree with Mr Gan Kim Yong that we should prepare our people on what to do when a bomb should go off. We will do this through a national security awareness campaign or programme starting next month. But, have no illusions about it too. No number of campaigns or amount of national education is enough, if the people themselves do not treat this threat seriously. It was the concern of a Muslim Singaporean who gave the crucial lead to ISD's uncovering of the Jemaah Islamiyah in December 2001. He is not alone. There have been many like him who have felt that sense of civic duty to step forward and report what they believe are potential security threats. Since September 11, we have received numerous reports from the public which have been helpful in the work of our law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, we have also received numerous hoaxes and pranks which have strained and wasted our limited policing resources. That is why the police will take a very serious view of anyone who either perpetrates a hoax or who spreads rumours which generate anxiety, tension or distrust, especially between our ethnic communities. If anyone in good faith observes something which he feels is of potential security threat or concern, he should not start a rumour, but instead report it immediately to the authorities, so that it may be effectively and quickly investigated and verified. Both Dr Ong Chit Chung and Prof. Chin Tet Yung pointed out that, given the nature of the terrorist network, counter-measures should have a regional dimension. This is a valid observation. I believe that governments in the region and beyond realise this and recognise the value of developing and mobilising collective resources and knowledge to deal with this terrorist threat.”
“I share Mr Chiam See Tong's view that even one bomb going off in Singapore is one bomb too many. But there are no guarantees - such as the one sought by Mr Steve Chia - which can insure Singaporeans against the violence of terrorism, whether it is spotted outside or inside Singapore. Indeed, as several Members of the House, including Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, alluded to, more realistically, Singaporeans must get involved and take ownership of this national threat to our security, because it confronts all of us - Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Singaporeans cannot afford to hold the complacent belief that the Government will always insure them against a terrorist incident - that there can never be a bomb going off in Singapore. No government can provide this assurance, no matter how well prepared it is. Singaporeans, like the young people whom Prof. Chin referred to, do themselves a disservice, if they are apathetic and leave it to the Government to deal with this threat alone. Neither can they afford to believe that this threat is not real, like some of those who attended the Feedback Unit's session and who expressed doubt about the genuineness of this JI case. Both groups, if they have no sense of the clear and present danger terrorism poses to their life, will be a liability to our national effort to instill vigilance against this threat. Whether it is the fight against crime or drugs or, in our present case, the fight against terrorism, it is citizens' involvement and support which are vital. The strongest defensive measure in any country against terrorism is always the vigilance and the resilience of its citizens and residents. This can come about only if citizens share in the concerns over terrorism and take ownership in helping to tackle this threat.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I see no need for this role. Our hon. Members have had three days of debate on this, and I will not try to agonise them further. But if they bear with me, I will just spend a bit of time to try to round up what all the hon. Members have said in the last three days. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all the Members of this House for expressing their views on the White Paper and for their strong support, across all the parties, for the motion. In the years ahead, the broad recommendations in the White Paper will have to be implemented effectively and sensibly, and in concrete terms - practical measures. But let me state this very clearly. The White Paper does not offer a panacea for the complete and permanent eradication of the terrorist threat that we are facing today. The White Paper's recommendations are actions we can develop and pursue domestically. These actions are necessary. But we must not be under any illusion that, by themselves, they are enough. For one thing, as I mentioned in my speech two days ago, this is a threat which is rooted outside Singapore. The threat cannot be eliminated by Singapore's action alone. Domestically, the recommendations in the White Paper are just directions which we can develop and pursue. But, even then, these do not foreclose any other good ideas, or options, or suggestions or avenues which may be helpful in dealing with this terrorist threat. Sir, to enhance security, we will continue to make ourselves a harder target for the terrorists. We will continue to develop strong, practical and sustainable defensive measures. Some inconvenience to our life, such as traffic jams at the checkpoints, cannot be avoided. It is a price worth paying for better security.”
“With more trained CD instructors, training programmes and community partnerships in place, the SCDF is confident in building up the pool of Singaporeans trained in CD skills. PARK CONNECTORS 20. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for National Development, in view of the need to encourage healthy lifestyles among Singaporeans (a) what is the progress in the development of park connectors in Singapore; and (b) whether his Ministry will consider expediting the development. Mr Mah Bow Tan: Since the Park Connector Network (PCN) was initiated in 1991, we have completed 21 stretches of park connectors, totaling 51 km. These park connectors are very well-utilised by residents for recreation such as jogging and cycling as well as to get to amenities within the neighbourhood. In view of its popularity, NParks is accelerating the implementation programme by developing 45 km of park connectors over the next 3 years. NParks targets to complete at least 170 km by 2015. This will help ensure that our parks and open spaces are within easy reach of our community. ABANDONED PETS 21. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many pets were abandoned each year; (b) what measures are being taken to address this problem; and (c) whether his Ministry will support the renting of pets by shops.”
“Over the past 20 years, SCDF has worked closely with various organisations and the community to train Singaporeans in civil defence (CD) skills, including CPR. To-date, more than 260,000 people have been trained in first aid and CPR. In the last 5 years alone, some 70,000 were trained. Examples of SCDF's public education and training efforts include: a. Training members of school uniformed groups in basic CD skills, including CPR; b. Educating residents on CD skills through Community Safety and Security Programmes (CSSPs); c. Conducting courses to equip volunteers with the necessary CD skills; d. Conducting CD Awareness Training Programme at the Fire Stations and Satellite Fire Posts for members of the public; and e. Conducting Basic Cardiac Life Support Courses for members of the public at the Civil Defence Academy to equip participants with the necessary knowledge on CPR. The SCDF has also, over the past 2 years, introduced new initiatives to train more Singaporeans in CD skills. The CD Awareness Training Programme is now more accessible to the public as it is conducted at Fire Stations and Satellite Fire Posts, which are conveniently located in residential estates. The SCDF has also trained volunteer instructors to help train members from their own community in CD skills. Specifically on CPR skills, SCDF has developed the musical CPR programme where music is incorporated into the CPR drill to help them learn and practise their CPR skills in an interesting way. The SCDF also encourages and supports community-led efforts to train Singaporeans in CD skills. A good example is the CPR programme jointly run by the Boys' Brigade, Alexandra Hospital and Central Singapore CDC. More than 2,000 people have been trained under this programme.”
“As for synthetic drug abuse which is associated with the nightlife and entertainment outlets frequented by youths, NCADA, over the past two years, has partnered the management of clubs to conduct an annual "Clubs Against Drugs" campaign to communicate the anti-drug message to club-goers. I am pleased to report that these efforts have been successful. The number of youths below age 20 arrested for drug abuse has declined from the peak of 679 in 1993 to 203 in 2002*, a significant drop of 70%. The problem is under control. Nevertheless, MHA will continue to work with the community and the schools to instill an attitude of zero tolerance towards drug abuse amongst our youths. * Figure for 2002 is provisional. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RENTAL FLATS 1. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for National Development if he will (a) give a breakdown of the total number of Housing and Development Board one- and two-room rental flats in Singapore; (b) state what is the trend in the demand for such flats over the last five years; and (c) provide a profile of the tenants in terms of age, marital status, sex and occupation.”
“The typical young drug abuser used to be a male heroin abuser below the age of 20. In recent years, however, in percentage terms, synthetic drugs have displaced heroin as the main drug of abuse amongst young abusers below the age of 20. 61% of the young arrested last year were abusers of synthetic drugs, compared to 37% of them being heroin abusers. It is difficult to compile a profile of young drug abusers. This is because youths from all backgrounds find themselves tempted to try synthetic drugs. Such "club drugs" are touted as being hip and harmless when, in fact, they are harmful and potentially even fatal. The National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) spearheads a wide range of preventive education programmes to spread the anti-drug message to a wide spectrum of our youths. Let me outline some of these measures. On the school front, CNB conducts talks to students on the dangers of drugs. CNB has also introduced anti-drug messages into the school curriculum. Visits are conducted to Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) to warn youths of the dangers and penalties of drug abuse. More recently, NCADA launched a new online preventive drug education tool called David's Diary. This has been well utilised and received by schools. NCADA also supports the PAL programme under the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association which aims to reach out to out-of-school youths. In 2001, an estimated 600 youths received assistance under the programme. 140 eventually returned to school while others managed to find employment.”
“If terrorists know that there is a strong coordination among ASEAN governments to share information and intelligence, of course, it will make it much more difficult for them to infiltrate and create trouble. But, perhaps we should do more than just sharing of information - there should be an attempt to set up joint operations to fight against terrorism, if that has not already been done. Sir, to conclude, we must strengthen our society to stifle the threat of terrorism in Singapore. It will take all that the White Paper recommends, and more. It will take broader measures, such as providing equal opportunities for all in all sectors, educating our people, especially the young, on the correct political responsibility, separation of state and religion, and pursuing a strong regional approach to fight the terrorists on one united front. In the final analysis, this debate is not just really about terrorism or public security, it is a matter that deals with fundamental questions of how we organise, grow, and survive, as a multi-racial, multi-religious society in this troubled region and the world. Sir, I support the motion.”
“Such well-established regional terrorist organisations will have great influence, if given the opportunity. It is very clear from the White Paper that a regional initiative is needed, not just for the security forces of the region to combine and act on regional terrorism, but also for governments and mainstream theological institutions to control the spread of militant ideology among the millions of Muslims in the region. Not only must our chief Islamic leaders denounce deviant teachings that spread the terrorist message, their counterparts in Malaysia or Indonesia have to do the same. Controlling the influx of foreign preachers to Singapore is just one of the ways mentioned. However, given today's easy accessibility to foreign resources, especially from the Internet, it is very likely that militant and deviant teachings could be obtained without much difficulty, if they were available elsewhere. However, should the mainstream and moderate Islamic leaders in the region act in concert and denounce militant interpretations of the religion, it will be a powerful force to counter the spread of terrorism in this region. Should we therefore not work towards getting a declaration from the major Islamic leaders in the ASEAN countries to condemn belligerent deviant forms or interpretations of Islam? That would send a clear signal not just to local Muslims, but also to everyone else in the world that ASEAN, and Singapore, are keen to combat terrorism. As the Minister has mentioned, this will no doubt help also improve the confidence not just of our people, but of people visiting the region and business people. The White Paper has also pointed out that there was a sharing of information among security agencies in each country. Of course, this must be strengthened.”
“But I would like to suggest, in addition, that there must be a more concretised and centralised approach, such as a code of political responsibility perhaps to be added to the Code of Religious Harmony, and that this code must state and maintain clearly the principle of separation between state and religion. I believe that reading the statement by the Malay-Muslim Members of this House, it is clear that their intention is to promote such a distinction, but it is necessary to translate this statement of intention into something concrete that can be a guide to the general public. And having such a code, I believe, we can inculcate such values, especially in the young, so that they will learn to live harmoniously in a secular society, without sacrificing or compromising their religious beliefs. We can even incorporate such principles in social studies programmes in schools and colleges. Here, I am talking not just about Muslims, but all people of all faiths. We have to live in a secular society in Singapore, and I hope that we can do so, recognising the clear separation between state and religion. The White Paper describes many disturbing features of the extensive regional terrorist network in Southeast Asia, of which the JI network in Singapore is but one. In the ASEAN region, different elements of the terrorist network operate in countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. From all accounts, these are more developed, bigger and better-funded and better-trained than Singapore's JI groups. Some, like the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines, have secessionist aims, and claim to be fighting for independence. They have fought against regular troops and managed to keep them at bay.”
“This statement, together with others made by MUIS and other Muslim religious and community leaders, is a clear signal to the general Muslim population that there must be a separation between religion and politics. Mixing the two is, in this context, like mixing Molotov cocktails in a multi-racial, multi-religious country like ours. It is an extremely explosive mixture that could only harm. How do we ensure that there is this strict division between religion and politics? It has been noted by many scholars that this is not easy in Muslim communities, especially those living in the West. The problem is that Islamic jurisprudence does not recognise secular law as superior to that of the Holy Law. According to scholars, militant Islam also does not recognise the state as an independent object of loyalty. This is evident from the views expressed by the JI detainees as to why they see that violence is justifiable, even when they are living in a peaceful and prosperous society. They have a culture of repudiation, fuelled by being in the minority in many of these societies. They felt isolated, disenchanted and rejected. We should be aware that such feelings among the young would provide a fertile recruitment ground for the militant leaders intent on changing the status quo. There has been mention in several public statements by MUIS and other Muslim leaders that there must be a monitoring and revision of religious education in madrasahs and mosques, so that belligerent and deviant Islamic thought that detracts from Islam as a pious and moderate religion is filtered out.”
“It refers to the recent formation of Inter-Racial Confidence Circles and the proposed Code of Religious Harmony. These are, of course, good and necessary. But I do not think that they would be enough. The White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony published in 1989 pointed out that there are two fundamental conditions for social harmony in Singapore. First, that all practising religions must exercise moderation and tolerance, and do nothing to cause religious enmity and hatred. Second, religion and politics must be kept rigorously separate. If we look at what has been done so far, I think it has more to do with the first condition than with the second. In my view, the second condition is even more important and pertinent in the fight against terrorism. Bringing religion into the realm of politics has been the cause of much civil strife and wars in the world since ancient and medieval times. There are many modern examples in other countries, such as the IRA in Britain, the MILF in the Philippines, and the Chechen rebels mentioned by the Minister. I believe the separation of religion and state is important in this current debate. We need to take steps to develop a strong belief in the people - all the people - that a secular state is not just good but necessary for Singapore's survival. How should this be done? There must be clear guidance on the political responsibility, particularly of Muslims in a secular society. The separation of religion from politics has to be emphasised. In this regard, I refer especially to the joint statement by the hon. Malay Muslim Members of this House where they emphasised the need for Muslims to stand together against belligerent theology, and to eschew violence.”
“Indeed, even after the arrests more recently, several young people I spoke to, including university students, said they did not think that the terrorist threat here is real and serious. Many felt that the police and other law enforcement agencies are capable enough to nip such plans in the bud. New York and Bali-type attacks, they said, were most unlikely to occur. This is praise for the law enforcement agencies, but I do not think that their attitude is one we want to encourage. I was actually really taken aback when one even suggested that when there is actually an attack, they will then sit up and take notice. Obviously, much more must be done to bring the reality of the threat home to the people. Such indifference and complacency are real, dangerous and serious. If we want public vigilance and support, we need to bring home to the general public the real and present danger of terrorism in Singapore and the region. What steps should be taken to ensure that the people are more alert and vigilant? I understand that a booklet will be published in February to alert the public on how to react if they see suspicious packages or the like. But if they are not conscious of this problem, it does not help, even if we distribute the booklet to all the households in Singapore. Of course, at the same time, the public must not be unduly alarmed. Otherwise, the drain on the security resources will be even more. But I think that the current situation requires some attention, some moves by the Government and by other community leaders to make the general public much more aware that the threat is real and serious. Sir, the White Paper states that it is important to check divisive misgivings and suspicions between the Muslims and the non-Muslims.”
“Indeed, there may also be no room for religious toleration and the like, unlike, for example, the Pancasila of Indonesia, which does provide for belief in one supreme God, but which had been interpreted rather liberally, to allow for religious freedom. The plan is therefore ambitious, as it would include Indonesia, Malaysia, south Philippines, Singapore and Brunei. This is a scary thought, especially for non-Muslims. If such a belief were to take root, it will cause much misunderstanding and mistrust between Muslims and non-Muslims or, worse, creating a culture of repudiation among the various races and religions. Again, we should see what regional initiatives there must be to counter such an objective. Third, there is the clear acceptance by the detainees that religion precedes every other value they have. The obligation to be law-abiding is subordinated to the religious obligation to perform the tasks set out by their leaders. Spiritual compulsion is, as we know, more powerful than any other compulsion. The promise of a better afterlife or the threat of being regarded as an infidel, have worked to convince the unsure and the faint-hearted to accept the tasks that are illegal and dangerous. It also allows those who follow this path to reconcile their having to kill or otherwise disrupt a society that had given them prosperity and peace. Religious fanaticism is really what we are dealing with and what we will have to deal with in the future. Are we ready to deal with this phenomenon? Sir, prior to the JI arrests in December 2001 and August 2002, the likelihood of a terrorist attack in Singapore was far from most Singaporeans' minds.”
“The support of this House for the White Paper and the Motion will reassure our people of the Government's commitment and firm actions in countering the threat of terrorism and in encouraging our people to press on with the efforts of building national cohesion. Question proposed. 2.45 pm Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs. The White Paper contains chilling accounts of the terrorist brotherhood in Singapore and Southeast Asia. It details how the detainees were recruited and motivated. It speaks of links that are global. Indeed, the brotherhood may be better organised and financed than the communist clandestine cells of the past. There are a few elements in the Paper that are worth emphasising so that we can see whether the proposed measures are indeed sufficient to counter the threats. First, as the Minister has mentioned, we are not only dealing with a local problem, but a regional and indeed a global one. The links that the JI brotherhood has with other groups in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are well developed, and may even be closer than those existing among the law enforcement agencies in those countries. If we do not look beyond our shores in countering this threat, we would not be addressing the problem convincingly. Any counter-measure that we take should also have a regional dimension. Second, there is a volatile and highly dangerous mixture of religious obligation coupled with political objectives. The White Paper notes that the ultimate objective of the JI is to create a Daulah Islamiyah in the region through the use of violence. There is no room for a secular state in the region.”
“If a bomb explodes tomorrow, it would hurt Muslims as well as non-Muslims. And the reactions of the different communities would be different. Just look at Bali where the terrorist attacks killed about 200 people. Immediately, there was tension between the majority who are Hindus and the minority who are Muslims. And they have been living there together peacefully for years without problems. Take another example - Russia. There are reports that as a result of the hostage-taking incident by the Chechen rebels in Moscow, there is now an "Islamophobia" in Russia, despite the fact that Muslims have lived side by side with the other Russians even in the days of the Czars. These types of reactions were also seen in the United States after September 11 and in Australia after Bali. We have to prevent fractures in our society of the kind that other societies have experienced. We have to realise that we cannot afford for a bomb to explode in Singapore before we start asking ourselves tough questions and taking measures to enhance our national cohesion. All Singaporeans must understand and do their part as our survival depends on it. Mr Speaker, Sir, the White Paper and this debate in Parliament will be scrutinised not only by Singaporeans but also by the world outside. They will watch whether we are united across parties and communities and are determined to deal with the threat or are we divided and in denial, squabbling over secondary issues and who to blame. Whether our foreign investors will view us with confidence or with anxiety will be influenced by how we respond as a Government and as a people.”
“The Government decided to issue a White Paper on JI and terrorism because we cannot afford to live in denial and delude ourselves that the problem is over. As Bali has shown, the fight against terrorism is far from over and promises to be a long one. This is largely because its primary sources and causes lie not in Singapore but elsewhere. Eradicating them once and for all is not something that we ourselves can do alone. The Government has done whatever it can to secure our borders and to enhance the security of our people but there are no guarantees. Nevertheless, in a more dangerous world, Singapore still remains one of the safest places. The White Paper describes the nature of the threat in detail as we want Singaporeans to appreciate that global terrorism in its current form is a layered and complex one, and is, at its heart, an ideological challenge. This is a much more difficult challenge to confront than the task of trying to stop the terrorist acts themselves. We are heartened that many of our Muslim leaders have already issued statements to express their understanding and support of the White Paper. A key strategy to overcome this challenge is to entrust our Muslim community leaders with the role to protect and guide the more vulnerable members in the community from being misled or subverted by extremist teachings. Lastly, this White Paper urges all Singaporeans to reject terrorism, whatever the cause. It urges Singaporeans to appreciate that once they accept that, in some situations, it is all right to use violence and to perpetrate terrorist acts against the innocent for some cause, religious or political or otherwise, they would have crossed the dangerous line. This could destroy Singapore as a multi-racial, multi-religious society.”
“The JI episode could have caused tensions which could undermine ethnic trust. Underlying all the reactions of Singaporeans, whatever they have been, is a sense that we must strive to handle the problem rationally and calmly and not rupture the peace that we have invested so much over time in building up. Mr Speaker, Sir, we recognise that Muslim Singaporeans, like Muslims elsewhere, face the difficult task of debunking stereotypes and prejudices arising from emotional and ill-informed reactions to terrorism. I know that it must sometimes be a bit tiresome for our Muslims to repeat their stand against terrorism. Likewise, we know also that there are non-Muslim leaders who feel the same way about having to reiterate the call for openness, tolerance and trust. Some may ask how many times must we do this. The answer, I believe, is for as long as there is a need for a countervailing voice to ensure that the last word heard is not that of the extremist or the terrorist; for as long as there are anxieties still festering and prejudices still likely to brew and congeal if not checked and countered. The alternative is to keep silent and pretend there are no problems by looking the other way. What our community leaders think and what is percolating at the emotional level on the ground must not automatically be assumed to be the same; we must work at ensuring that what is subscribed intellectually must also be supported by an emotional commitment to act accordingly. The Government on its part will and must continue to be vigilant against signs of misperceptions of mistrust manifested on the ground. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, let me summarise what I have just said.”
“Ultimately, however, Singaporeans themselves must individually make the effort to build meaningful relationships with each other. Since the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, the world has intensified its scrutiny of Islam because Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda professed themselves to be good Muslims who perpetrated terrorism for the good of Islam. As a result, Muslims all over the world have found themselves in the spotlight. They find themselves in the position of having to demonstrate their non-support of terrorist actions and, at the same time, defend against prejudices which may see Islam as a faith of the violent rather than of the peaceful. Our Muslim Singaporeans have not been spared from this trauma. Sir, fortunately for us, our Muslim leaders have dealt with the unwelcome attention firmly and courageously. After 11 September, our Muslim leaders, including Members of Parliament, religious leaders, and other community leaders, stood up quickly to issue strong statements condemning the acts of violence. When the detention of the JI members was made public, they again stood up to denounce the JI group's actions. They clarified that Islam had nothing to do with terrorism. In a strong show of solidarity and conviction, more than 120 Muslim organisations led by Habib Syed Hassan of Ba'alwie Mosque issued in October last year a joint statement to condemn terrorism unequivocally. Our Muslim leaders' declaration, as well as our Malay Members of Parliament's quick response, that Islam and terrorism should not be linked in any way is critical. We have seen how, in some parts of the world, the acts of terrorism, whether by Osama or other groups, were not condemned but celebrated.”
“Harmony Circles (HCs) are being formed in schools, workplaces and local organisations to reach out to more people. All these are on top of what the grassroots bodies have been doing on a regular basis to promote inter-cultural activities. The Prime Minister has suggested that religious groups in Singapore adopt a Code of Religious Harmony. This code is not meant to bind individuals or groups to its strict prescriptions in an iron clad fashion. It is more a code to remind ourselves that we are relatively free to practise our religions and beliefs in a safe environment. This precious freedom, however, is not absolute; there are limits, and necessarily so in a secular multi-ethnic state like Singapore. If every community pushes for the maximum, then inevitably the majority will overwhelm and subjugate the minorities. It is mutual restraint and tolerance and the strength of the bonds which unify the races in the common spaces which would determine the extent of relative freedom for each ethnic community which our society as a whole can accommodate. Some critics have said that the activities of the IRCCs and HCs are superficial and that these are artificial constructs which cannot be expected to really foster understanding among Singaporeans. It is true that these are conscious and deliberately developed structures. These are vehicles which hopefully will steer and mobilise participation over a sensitive social area in an awkward time. I agree that it will all be ineffective if these efforts begin and end with the Government. What we hope to do is to set the tone and to create the opportunities for Singaporeans to think about and to promote interaction.”
“He was planning to attack Singapore targets and make these attacks look like they were carried out by Muslims in Malaysia. He hoped to create hostility not just between Singapore and Malaysia but also between Muslims and non-Muslims in Singapore. He wanted to create an environment of hate and suspicion so that Muslim and non-Muslim Singaporeans would turn against one other. If he had succeeded, Singapore would have imploded with communal violence. Sir, even without bombs going off, if we allow the JI episode to create discord, suspicion and distrust among ourselves, we would have played right into the terrorists' hands. Although there has been some awkwardness between Muslims and non-Muslims in Singapore since the JI arrests, especially in the initial periods, Singaporeans have generally reacted to the JI arrests rationally. In fact, after the JI arrests, many individual Singaporeans instinctively sympathised with Muslim Singaporeans whom they knew would be subjected to even more stress and scrutiny through no fault of their own. On their own and quietly with no publicity or fanfare, some Singaporeans have tried to do their part. This has not been revealed before but that the very first few Singaporeans who contributed money to the families of the JI detainees were four Chinese businessmen. When approached, they immediately donated a total of $20,000 to help these families. The Government has since 11 September 2001 and the JI arrests intensified efforts to increase common understanding between the different ethnic and religious groups. One of the first concrete plans the Government put in place was the establishment of Inter-Racial Confidence Circles (IRCCs) to bring together religious and community leaders to build trust and understanding among different groups.”
“In the same way we will win over the overwhelming majority of our Singapore Muslims to be an active part of a tolerant multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore, by demonstrating that our policies are directed against the deviant few who are distorting the tenets of Islam for their aims of converting Singapore to become a part of "Daulah Islam", an Islamic state in Southeast Asia. In confronting this terrorist threat, the Government would rather not intervene with measures directly but instead prefer that the community's leadership together with MUIS (Islamic Religious Council of Singapore) be given the opportunity to take the lead. The Government has assured the community that it will give whatever support is required to facilitate their efforts in this endeavour. Threat to National Cohesion Sir, the third level of threat which terrorism poses is a challenge to our national cohesion. One of the most critical issues that the White Paper wants to impress upon everyone is that terrorism is a national problem, not just something which involves the Muslim community. For the non-Muslims, we have to convince them that Islam is not the problem and that they should continue to work with and befriend Muslims as they have previously. They must also guard against irrational prejudices arising from anxieties related to the JI episode. The JI's aim is to cause ethnic strife in Singapore and divide us as a nation. Hambali, the Al-Qaeda point-man and JI operations commander, was certainly aware of the likely strains to ethnic relations if a bomb goes off. He understood well that race and religion are our natural fault-lines and he thought that he could exploit this for his purposes.”
“Similarly, while our Muslims absorb all that is good and right in their faith, they will also have to find a way to filter out the dangerous. Our Muslim Singaporeans should not feel defensive. Indeed, they have nothing to be defensive about. I know this is sometimes easier said than done; but we must persevere. In fact, this is a sentiment which our older Chinese-educated Singaporeans can well identify with. Many of our Chinese-educated Singaporeans did feel themselves suspect and under scrutiny, or in the spotlight, as they say, when the threat of communism was rife and communists were nearly all Chinese-educated. To combat the communist threat at the time, the Government took tough measures. But we were able to show that we were not against the Chinese-educated that we wanted to win over from the radicalised politics of revolution by violence. And we eventually succeeded in winning the overwhelming of the Chinese-educated. Most Singaporeans would recall that until just about 10 years ago, Singaporeans faced severe restrictions in their travels to the People's Republic of China (PRC). It was only from 1972 that group tours to the PRC were allowed but, even then, Singaporeans under the age of 30 were not allowed to join these tours. It was not until 1984 that Singaporeans were allowed to individually visit the PRC for business or to visit relatives without having to produce documentary proof. The documentary proof we asked them was a letter, an introduction, and so on. It was not until 1987 that Singaporeans could pursue academic studies in the PRC. Endorsements of Singaporean passports for visits to the PRC were discontinued only in 1992, barely 11 years ago. Mr Speaker, Sir, we learn from the past.”
“The core of the JI and current terrorist threat is ideological because its ability to recruit members and get them to participate in its terrorist agenda resides in its leaders' ability to manipulate Islamic doctrines to rationalise such action. The first real target of the JI and the current terrorist threat is therefore actually our Muslim community because this is the constituency which is being targeted by the JI for its recruitment. There is a need for our Muslim religious and community leaders to explore how they can protect the community against such a threat. The White Paper recommends that rather than the Government intervening in this arena, it is best that the community devise ways and means to police the threat and prevent radical and extremist teachings from subverting our mainstream religious order or bodies. This must be pursued in a manner which does not impair the legitimate religious beliefs or pursuits of the community. The approach should seek to consult and involve as many of our religious and community leaders as possible to develop structures or schemes which are practical, realistic and robust. I believe we have good and reputable religious scholars among our people. They should be encouraged to give clear and firm guidance to the community on the issue of terrorism. While we may disagree on some issues, we cannot afford to be divided on the issue of terrorism. Of course, all these measures, no matter how comprehensive, may not be fool-proof. Nevertheless, we need to make the effort. For instance, we embrace the knowledge that the Internet can provide but we also have to tolerate the smut and trivia that it contains. So one way we guard ourselves and our children is with filters.”
“However, an aftermath of that war was the growth and development of the Al-Qaeda and its links through the Afghan veterans into an international network which unified and radicalised militant groups broadly under its globalised agenda of religious war against the United States and its Western allies while, at the same time, significantly developed their operational terrorist capacities. Our Singaporean JI members belonged to an organisation which was part of this broader network and which made it a ready operational instrument for the Al-Qaeda. This is a backdrop which we cannot ignore. Our Muslim Singaporeans cannot hope to be insulated from developments in the Muslim world any more than Christian or Buddhist or Hindu Singaporeans can be completely untouched by developments among their religious brethren elsewhere. However, while it is natural for us to feel empathy for the plight or sufferings of fellow Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or Hindus, it is quite another thing altogether to do so by crossing the line to support extremist violence and terrorism. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me state here clearly and without ambiguity for the record that this Government has no problems with religious piety, whichever the religion. But we will not tolerate the use of violence to perpetrate any cause - be it religious or political or whatever. While Muslim Singaporeans know where to draw the line and know that their empathy should not translate into support for or participation in violence, the JI episode tells us not only that a few have strayed across the line, it also points to the vulnerability of others like them.”
“Many of the detainees now regretted their actions and attributed it to their blind loyalty to their leaders and their teachings. They were in search of religious knowledge but got sucked into a militant ideology and were infected by its hatred and radical and violent values. A few had some doubts but they felt they were too deeply involved to withdraw. Moreover, they had taken oaths of allegiance, or the bai'ah, to their leaders which were sworn in the name of God and feared retribution if they should betray their vows. Like the rest of Southeast Asia, Singapore has also been touched by the religious revivalism, including Islamic revivalism, seen in the world since the 1970s. In the Islamic world, a few events have been key in defining the contours of political activism. While most of its manifestations were non-violent even if assertive, in some cases, political extremism led to terrorism. The Middle East conflict (1948 to now) has spawned many radical militant and terrorist groups and is likely to continue to sustain them so long as the political conflict remains unchanged there. The Iranian Revolution (1979) saw the successful establishment of a purist Islamic theocracy and was a source of inspiration to many Muslim communities in the world. However, it also inspired a resurgence of competition by Saudi-based groups which promoted an Arab-based culture and its interpretation of Islam. The Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989) was another watershed event which saw a superior Soviet military succumbing to the Muslim mujahidin (warriors) who had come from all parts of the world. The outcome gave hope that they could stand up to the superpowers.”
“Secret operational cells were formed and were tasked by the JI leadership in Johor to conduct reconnaissance of targets suitable for attack in the future. This was not in some distant future; they were supposed to execute their plans in 2004, which is next year. The JI's strategic blue-print for action is contained in a secret document called the Pedoman Umum Perjuangan Jemaah Islamiyah, which means "General Guidelines on the Struggle of the Jemaah Islamiyah". Like its mentor, the Al-Qaeda, the JI is a determined and highly organised body which systematically collected and documented information and knowledge like how to make bombs, how to conduct training and assess suitability of candidates, how to avoid detection by the authorities and so on. The JI is in fact a knowledge-based, learning organisation. Among the documents we have obtained so far are several training manuals, including a 35-page bomb-making manual written in Malay. Some of the other documents are written in Malay, Bahasa Indonesia, Arabic and even English. The degree of radicalisation of the JI organisation, and the sophistication of its tradecraft derived from the Al-Qaeda, was a surprise to many. Indeed, no country was aware of the JI as a terrorist organisation until the exposure of the network in Singapore following the first group of arrests by ISD in December 2001. However, what was the most shocking and saddest discovery for all Singaporeans must be the fact that the JI was able to recruit some Singaporeans who were prepared to stage terrorist actions inside Singapore which would injure and kill other Singaporeans, Muslims as well as non-Muslims. How did such Singaporeans who were by no means marginalised or ignorant wind up this way?”
“Subsequently, with exposure to the Afghan War and Al-Qaeda terrorist training both in ideological and material terms, the JI leaders expanded their vision to a regional one which included Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Mindanao. If the aim of achieving such an agenda was by dakwah (missionary work), there would be no terrorist problem today. However, their means to achieve this vision was by force of arms or violence rationalised as a jihad which they claim Muslims are duty-bound to undertake. This led groups like the JI to also subscribe to the globalised religious war which the Al-Qaeda preached against the United States and its Western allies. That was why the local JI was willing to be Al-Qaeda proxies in October 2001 to prepare to mount an attack against American and other foreign targets in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore JI leader, Ibrahim Maidin, told a senior ISD officer that he regretted agreeing to assist in the Al-Qaeda plan to mount truck bomb attacks in Singapore in 2001. The fact that the JI network was exposed and the plot thwarted, he felt, reflected that God was not in favour of it. However, the second group of arrests in August 2002, showed that the threat posed by the JI was not solely in its being a willing proxy of the Al-Qaeda. The JI's plan for a regional Daulah Islamiyah to be achieved by force and terror was quietly and systematically pursued. Dakwah units were converted into operation units. Male members were sent for military training; preparatory training was conducted in Malaysia and armed training was conducted with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in Mindanao.”
“We have given access to investigators from Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia and the United States to question relevant JI detainees in Singapore. We are committed to continue to assist and cooperate as best as we can with all foreign partners who are serious in wanting to deal with this common threat. Threat to Muslim Community Mr Speaker, Sir, the second level of threat of terrorism is one directed at our Muslim Singaporeans. The actions of the few in the JI have the potential of sowing mistrust among non-Muslims towards Muslims. We must zealously guard against this. Many of the JI detainees regretted that their actions have not only distressed their families but have also "disgraced" their fellow Muslims and their religion. More fundamentally, the threat which the JI poses to Muslim Singaporeans lies in the JI members portraying themselves as having arrived at the "true Islam" as opposed, in their view, to the religious instruction given in mainstream Muslim society in Singapore. A consistent finding by the teams of psychologists who interviewed the JI detainees was that most of them joined the JI organisation through religious classes in search of deeper religious knowledge. Through such religious classes, the JI was able to talent-spot and recruit its followers. These potential members were then taught a doctrine of violent jihad (holy struggle) which persuaded them to dedicate their lives to the cause of God in support of or in direct participation in violent and terrorist activities against the enemies of Islam. At first, the "enemies of Islam", according to the JI, was the Indonesian Government as the JI's concept of a Daulah Islamiyah was confined to Indonesia.”
“By April this year, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority will be set up to ensure comprehensive and effective checks at sea, air and land checkpoints under one integrated command. Over the next few months, we will begin to deploy air marshals on board Singapore Airlines and SilkAir flights. Stringent measures are necessary to prevent the entry of foreign terrorist elements and those who want to help them. Singaporeans and tourists and other visitors have had to deal with some inconvenience at the checkpoints but I believe that Singaporeans understand the need for these measures and are prepared to put up with some inconvenience in return for better security. But, as far as possible, we want to ensure that Singaporeans do not have to change their lifestyles drastically for fear of their safety. The Government has done and will continue to do whatever it can to secure Singapore and to protect Singaporeans. However, Singapore alone cannot eliminate terrorism or even the JI network in the region. The JI's regional character and the Al-Qaeda's international character and its links to a web of militant organisations world-wide mean that countries must work together to defeat terrorism. ISD has readily shared its intelligence on the JI and its investigation findings with all its liaison partners in the region and beyond. This included early leads on JI networks in the various mantiqis (districts) covering Malaysia/Singapore, Indonesia, Mindanao/Sabah and Australia. Our early detection of the identities used by "Mike", the JI bomb-maker and "Sammy", the Al-Qaeda operative, in the plot to mount truck-bomb attacks against targets in Singapore led to the arrests of these terrorists in the Philippines and in Oman.”
“It is not about Islam but about those terrorist groups and individuals who distort it to justify their cause and terrorist acts. It is complex because its sources are not inside but outside Singapore. Against the backdrop of a fuller understanding of the threat, the White Paper also seeks to explore practical, even if difficult, directions we should consider in order to deal with this threat as a society and as a people. The Nature of and Response to the Threat Sir, let me now spell out briefly the nature of the threat that we are facing and how we are addressing it. As detailed in the White Paper, we believe that we have to deal with the threat from groups like JI on three levels. Threat to National Security First, the threat to National Security. The first level of threat is one of national security. Since the discovery of JI in Singapore, ISD's priority has been to prevent bombs from going off here. The actions since December 2001 have significantly neutralised the terrorist threat locally. By crippling the local JI network, we have disrupted their operations and dismantled their local infrastructure. Nevertheless, the investigation continues to focus on ferreting out all those who are linked to the JI network and preventing them from re-grouping. The investigation into the second group of arrests in August last year revealed significant links between the JI network and other terrorist and militant groups in the region. These have to be pursued systematically and tenaciously. We have stepped up the level of security protection throughout Singapore. We have increased defensive security measures at key installations and buildings like the Changi Airport, our border checkpoints, important Government and commercial buildings, and oil and water installations.”
“I believe the fact that we have so far weathered this threat as a society fairly well is due, to a significant extent, to their efforts in holding the ground, helping to maintain calm and facilitating rational responses and not emotional or irrational reactions among our people. But we are not out of the woods yet. The threat of terrorism is the single most dangerous security threat Singapore has faced since the threat of communism. All countries in the world face this terrorist threat today; no country is immune. Singapore is no exception. As a Government and as a people, we have always taken the approach of facing our problems, be it economic recession or terrorism, squarely and soberly. We need to de-sensitise the awkward and difficult issues and talk about them openly and dispassionately so that we may be better able then to grapple with and manage them. So, although the JI and terrorism subject remains a difficult one even now, we must continue to be able to discuss rationally with our different communities in Singapore, the threat posed and its implications. Therefore, while I understand the concerns of those who feel that we should not discuss the JI issue in this House, I also strongly believe that there is no avoiding us taking this road of public discussion because the threat is far from over. To believe otherwise is to deceive ourselves at our own peril. For these reasons, the Government decided to release a White Paper. We hope that the White Paper will not only give all Singaporeans a comprehensive account of our experience so far in dealing with terrorism but also establish, across our various communities, a common appreciation of the complex nature of this threat. It is complex because it rides on an ideological agenda which exploit and manipulate Islam.”
“We had to decide whether to give as much details as possible to the public or to keep it to a minimum to avoid possibly creating alarm and panic among our citizens. We chose to share as much as we can without compromising investigations because the Government realised that the JI episode was not an isolated, once-off phenomenon but, in fact, symptomatic of the terrorist wave that is confronting the world today. To say little is to live in denial of this reality. So, in January 2002, we decided that we must engage our people openly but sensitively on this issue. We needed to ensure that the public revelations of the case did not lead to knee-jerk reactions by Muslims or non-Muslims which would impair our social cohesion and, at the same time, squarely confront the issue and not skirt around it. Senior officers from the Internal Security Department (ISD) met and briefed Muslim community leaders about the case before it went public. This was to alert them about the case. They were even told some aspects of the case which, at that time, could not be made public yet. We wanted to assure these leaders that the ISD investigation and security operation were focused against a group of extremists who had turned to terrorism and were not investigations against Islam or our Muslim community. The Prime Minister himself chaired two sessions attended by over 1,700 community and religious leaders each time in January and October last year to discuss the issues and to address some anxieties and concerns which quite naturally surfaced after the two groups of arrests. Our religious and community leaders subsequently played a major part in addressing anxieties and concerns on the ground and ensuring that there was no mischievous or speculative misreading of the JI case.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House (a) acknowledges that the terrorist threat to Singapore is real and serious; (b) supports the firm actions the Government has taken against the threat to the security of Singapore posed by the Jemaah Islamiyah group and other militant and extremist groups in the region; and (c) endorses the recommendations put forth in the White Paper on The Jemaah Islamiyah Arrests and the Threat of Terrorism, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 2003, to counter the terrorist threat by (i) enhancing the security measures; (ii) policing the spread of terrorist and extremist ideology; and (iii) strengthening our social cohesion and religious harmony. Why the White Paper? Some people wonder why the Government wants to issue a White Paper on the Jemaah Islamiyah or JI and on terrorism. They felt that so much has already been shared and discussed publicly. Leaders from the Muslim and non-Muslim groups have openly declared their rejection of terrorism and their commitment to preserve Singapore's social cohesion. What else is there to say and how many more times do we have to say it before the issue can be laid to rest? Some believe that if we talk about the issue so often publicly, and now debating it in Parliament, we will provoke more anxieties and fears, especially among non-Muslims, and this will undermine the social cohesion instead of strengthening it. Foreign investors may also be frightened away. There are also those who feel that we should put the whole JI episode behind us and move on and not start the brand new year on such a sober and serious note. Sir, these are all natural concerns. Right from the start of the JI episode, the Government had to grapple with the issue of how much to say and to make public.”
“I do not see how they can be returned. The Police will take action to delete the record when the person is acquitted. The question was also asked by Mr Mohan whether DNA test is a good test. I have already explained that DNA test provides the probability of an identical DNA only in the case of one in a billion. In fact, depending on the number of multiple markers used, it can be one in 250 billion. It will be much more accurate than that of a finger impression. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ECONOMIC EXPANSION INCENTIVES (RELIEF FROM INCOME TAX) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”