INVESTIGATION INTO MAS SELAMAT'S ACTIONS AFTER HIS ESCAPE FROM DETENTION

INVESTIGATION INTO MAS SELAMAT'S ACTIONS AFTER HIS ESCAPE FROM DETENTION:

(Statement by the Minister for Home Affairs):

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a statement to the House in relation to Mas Selamat.

On 18th October this year, Deputy Prime Minister Wong informed this House of what Mas Selamat had said about how he got out of the Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC) on 27th February 2008. The account given by Mas Selamat was consistent with the findings of the Committee of Inquiry (COI).

CID investigations into what Mas Selamat did after he escaped from WRDC are still in progress. He has not been entirely forthcoming. He has changed his story several times. In some instances, whether his accounts are completely truthful cannot be fully verified. Today, I will update the House on the findings that the investigators have verified through independent corroboration.

Took shelter with brother's family

Mas Selamat escaped from WRDC on 27th February 2008. Two days later, on 29th February 2008, he made his way to his brother Asmom’s home in Tampines to

Column: 1500

seek shelter and assistance from his grown-up niece, Nur Aini bte Asmom. Mas Selamat thought that Nur Aini was living alone. He believed that Asmom and his wife were living in their house in Johor while Asmom’s son (ie, Mas Selamat’s nephew), Mahadir, was overseas. Mas Selamat believed that it would be safe for him at Asmom’s house as only Nur Aini would be there and that she would render assistance to him. However, Asmom, his wife Aisah, their daughter Nur Aini and son Mahadir were all living in Asmom’s home. They have all independently admitted that Mas Selamat had stayed overnight in their home between 29th February and 1st March 2008. Asmom, Aisah and Nur Aini have also admitted that they had harboured Mas Selamat, providing him with shelter, food, money and clothes.

I will set out their respective roles in harbouring and aiding Mas Selamat on those two days.

Nur Aini

First, Nur Aini. Nur Aini had let Mas Selamat into the flat. Her mother, Aisah, had reservations about allowing Mas Selamat into the flat because by that time his escape two days earlier and fugitive status were very public. She knew that it was wrong to help him. Nur Aini, however, persuaded her mother to allow Mas Selamat to enter the flat. She gave him the use of her bedroom, provided him with food and water, and also assisted him by destroying material evidence, namely, the clothing he wore to the flat, which included his WRDC-issued attire.

On 1st March 2008, before Mas Selamat left the flat, Nur Aini applied make-up on Mas Selamat, secured a tudung (headscarf) over his head so that he could disguise himself as a woman to evade detection and recapture. She also gave him several items, which included a set of clothes to wear, a baseball cap,

*Cols. 1587-1596.

Column: 1501

water, snack, an illumination stick, air-tight re-sealable plastic bags to pack the items and a backpack which he used to store all these items. At Mas Selamat’s request, she also handed to him a map of Singapore that showed part of Malaysia.

Asmom

I will turn to Asmon now. Asmom jointly owned the flat with his wife Aisah. He found out about Mas Selamat’s presence in the flat when he returned from work in the early hours of 1st March 2008. He knew it was wrong to harbour Mas Selamat, was unhappy about Mas Selamat's presence but eventually decided to allow Mas Selamat to stay in his flat. Before Mas Selamat left the flat on 1st March 2008, Asmom gave him S$100 and RM100 to facilitate his escape from Singapore to Malaysia. He also gave Mas Selamat some traditional medicine which the latter kept in his backpack.

Aisah

Next, Aisah. Aisah is a joint-owner of the flat with Asmom. She was initially reluctant to allow Mas Selamat to enter the flat on 29th February. But she nevertheless subsequently went along and helped Mas Selamat. She gave him an EZ-link card and a hair-net which he wore as part of his disguise, and some paracetamol.

Mahadir

Finally, Mahadir. Mahadir had returned home to the flat on the night of 29th February. He became aware that his family members were harbouring Mas Selamat in their flat. He did not report the matter to the authorities. However, neither did he render any specific assistance to Mas Selamat, and nor was he in the flat most of the time when Mas Selamat was taking refuge in it.

Column: 1502

The independent accounts of Mas Selamat, Asmom, Aisah, Nur Aini and Mahadir of what took place in Asmom’s flat and the assistance rendered to Mas Selamat are consistent.

Information still under investigation

As to how Mas Selamat made his way to Asmom’s flat and how he subsequently made his way to Malaysia, the account given by Mas Selamat is still subject to verification. It would, therefore, not be productive to set it out at this time.

Offence committed by Asmom and family

Asmom, Aisah and Nur Aini had knowingly harboured Mas Selamat, an escaped prisoner of the State, who they knew was the subject of a massive manhunt. Even after Mas Selamat left their flat on the evening of 1st March 2008, they did not reveal information concerning Mas Selamat to the authorities. On the contrary, they deliberately withheld the information when they were interviewed by the authorities on 3rd March 2008. It was only in October 2010, after being confronted with the facts, that Asmom, Aisah, Nur Aini and Mahadir admitted to what had happened. Asmom’s and his family’s decision to harbour Mas Selamat and provide him with material support that enabled him to escape to Malaysia was very wrong, illegal and had grave security implications.

Mas Selamat is a hardened and dangerous terrorist who has been involved in various plots by the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) to mount terrorist attacks in Singapore since the 1990s. He is operationally trained and has undergone training not once but twice in Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. After the Singapore authorities disrupted the Singapore JI network in December 2001 and averted the terrorist plot to conduct simultaneous truck bomb attacks in Singapore, Mas Selamat plotted to mount retaliatory

Column: 1503

attacks against Singapore. Harbouring Mas Selamat and assisting him to escape from Singapore placed Singapore’s and Singaporeans’ security in serious jeopardy as Mas Selamat would thereby be able to resume his terrorist activities of attacking Singapore.

Criminal offence committed

The Government had stated in Parliament on 28th February 2008 that anyone who rendered assistance to Mas Selamat would be committing a "grave offence". Nur Aini, Asmom and Aisah were arrested and charged on 10th November 2010 under section 130 of the Penal Code for their roles in knowingly harbouring Mas Selamat, a prisoner of State. The three pleaded guilty to the charges and were convicted and sentenced on 18th November 2010. For their actions, Nur Aini, Asmom and Aisah have been sentenced to 18 months, 12 months and 3 months of imprisonment, respectively. Mahadir, who had a lesser role in the matter, has been served with a stern warning in lieu of prosecution.

Singaporeans will be undoubtedly disappointed that Asmom and his family had helped Mas Selamat in his escape. Their actions are, however, not a reflection on the wider Malay-Muslim community who had disapproved of Mas Selamat’s actions and participated in the manhunt for him in 2008. We should therefore not allow this episode to affect the trust and goodwill that has been built up over the years between our different communities. Instead, this episode should reinforce how important it is for every Singaporean to unite together and assist the security agencies to overcome the threat of terrorism from a small number of persons in our society.

Mr Speaker: There will be no debate or speeches for this item, but the Minister has agreed to accept questions and clarifications.

Column: 1504

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, there was a massive manhunt following Mas Selamat's escape. May I ask the Minister whether Mas Selamat's relatives or close associates were questioned or their homes placed under surveillance during this period?

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, investigations following Mas Selamat's escape from WRDC identified a loose network of friends, relatives and ex-JI associates. This totalled to a few hundred people, including Mas Selamat's own extended family which alone numbered more than a hundred. Investigations were conducted on all of them. Further actions were prioritised and pursued for those cases where there was necessity based on intelligence. For obvious operational security reasons, I cannot talk about who specifically were subjected to surveillance, who were not and what sort of surveillance was conducted.

Specifically to Asmom, Asmom and Mas Selamat had not been in contact for many years in the past. Asmom and his family had never visited Mas Selamat when he was in detention prior to his escape. Nevertheless, the Internal Security Department (ISD) interviewed Asmom and the interview took place on 3rd March, a few days after Asmom had given refuge to Mas Selamat in his home. Asmom failed to inform the authorities of his contact with Mas Selamat at the interview. At that point in time, there was no evidence or intelligence to warrant any further action against him.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah): There are certainly some racial sensitivities involved because there are implications that members who had helped him, whether it is from the family or not, were from the Muslim community. I have two points. One, based on the Ministry's findings so far, is the Ministry satisfied

Column: 1505

that it is just confined to his family members? Two, given the fact that Mas Selamat also did escape in a tudung , according to the account by the Minister, will the Ministry assure the Malay community that there will not be unnecessary scrutiny on Malay women wearing tudung when they enter security areas or when they seek appointment, for example, for jobs, and other related movements in and out of Singapore.

Mr Shanmugam: Let me deal with the point on tudung first. As to whether someone is picked up for scrutiny, whether she is wearing a tudung or not, really depends on security assessment. It is difficult to answer these questions in vacuo . If that is an intelligence assessment – if there is a necessity to check – there will be a check. If there is no reason to check, then there will be none.

As to the broader question, the Government has consistently stated over the years that the actions of a few are not a reflection of the Malay/Muslim community as a whole. Our position remains unchanged. Over the years, the actions of the Malay/Muslim community have borne that out. They have been very supportive of our efforts to build a tolerant, united community and have consistently spoken out against violence in the name of any religion. There is no reason for employers, or anyone else, to shy away from employing members of the Muslim community or for anyone to use this incident as an excuse to target members of the Malay/Muslim community. And in the civil service, the recruitment policy is based on the system of meritocracy. I can state categorically that this incident will not affect the Government's recruitment policies. Employers in the private sector should similarly hire individuals based on that individual's suitability for the job.

Column: 1506

As for whether there is any further evidence that people beyond this family are involved, we do not have any such specific evidence right now.

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister whether this incident would have any adverse impact on the state of communal relations in Singapore and what his Ministry would do to allay any anxiety that some communities may have.

Mr Shanmugam: To be specific, Dr Ong is referring to the anxieties of the Malay community.

Sir, I have made it clear that the three individuals committed a criminal offence of harbouring a prisoner of state. The threat Mas Selamat posed was a threat that was posed to Singapore as a whole and for all the communities in Singapore. His actions put all Singaporeans at risk. As such, all Singaporeans across the communities will feel disappointed with the actions of Asmom and his family. Their actions should not be projected on the Malay/Muslim community at large. I had said earlier that many members of the Malay/Muslim community assisted in the hunt for Mas Selamat in 2008. The general response of the Malay/Muslim community showed that they view Mas Selamat in the same way that other communities do. Therefore, we have to look at this harbouring of Mas Selamat by Asmom and his family in context, and we cannot allow the actions of these three persons to affect the state of communal relations, and the trust and goodwill that has been built up over many years between our various communities, especially between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. We will continue to emphasise the importance of good race relations for the security and progress of Singapore.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: I would like to ask the Minister what efforts will be made

Column: 1507

to extend rehabilitation services to those members of the Asmom family in terms of the Religious Rehabilitation Group's (RRG) efforts in this area as well.

Mr Shanmugam: Counselling services will be offered to them. And though there is no specific evidence of them being influenced by radical JI ideology, religious counselling will also be offered to them.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Sir, I was actually going to ask whether there will be any monitoring and counselling programmes for the family. I think that was asked by Mdm Halimah.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Mr Speaker, it is quite shocking to receive this news that Mas Selamat had actually been assisted by his extended family members, given the fact that all of Singapore were concerned during that period and the massive manhunt that took place. But I would like to first thank the Minister for being open and sharing this news on the case with us and I am sure the Minister will continue to share such pertinent information with Singaporeans.

I do have several questions that probably are in the minds of Singaporeans when they read the news tonight and tomorrow, specifically with regard to the family members. Firstly, were Asmom and his family members forthcoming when confronted with the evidence of this abetment of Mas Selamat's escape to Malaysia?

Secondly, given the seriousness and graveness of the offence, I just wonder whether the Minister feels that the punishment for the Asmom and his family members was too lenient. I think we have heard the Minister repeatedly mention that Mas Selamat is a prisoner of state. Imprisonments of 18 months and 12

Column: 1508

months seem a little light, given the seriousness of the offence.

Thirdly, is regarding the daughter of Asmom, Nur Aini. Given her deepest involvement in harbouring Mas Selamat, I wonder if the Minister could give us some background about her and what she did, for us to have a sense as to why a person like her would make a decision to help and abet a prisoner of state and remain silent for the next two years before we got information on her.

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, when they were interviewed in March 2008, obviously they were not forthcoming. However, when confronted with the facts in October of this year, they independently verified and confirmed to having harboured Mas Selamat, and this was not only said to the interviewers. They made their statements to the magistrate who took down their statements and so it was independently verified and they were prepared to say those things to a magistrate. So, I do not know how to characterise it as whether they were forthcoming or not, but they were prepared to tell the truth when it was clear that the truth was out.

The second question that Dr Maliki had was whether the sentences were too light, given the seriousness of the offence. We have to remember one fact, which is that the sentences were meted out by the Court. They were based on submissions by both the prosecution and the defence, and the sentences, in our view, reflect the different degrees of involvement of the family in harbouring and aiding Mas Selamat. Nur Aini was obviously the most culpable. She has been given the longest jail sentence. The other two received shorter sentences probably because of their lesser involvement. The Court is likely to have given weight to the fact that the assistance was not premeditated. Rather, the three persons appeared to have acted

Column: 1509

on misguided instincts of family ties on the spur of the moment. Aisah was reluctant to let Mas Selamat in. She is a housewife who was persuaded by Nur Aini, and it appears that Asmom may also have been initially unhappy about Mas Selamat being in the flat though he allowed Mas Selamat to stay. But having said that, they did commit a serious offence and have thus been given custodial sentences. Mahadir was issued with a stern warning in lieu of prosecution. He had not reported to the authorities that Mas Selamat was in his family's flat. But unlike the others, he also did not render any specific assistance to Mas Selamat and was not in the flat most of the time when Mas Selamat was taking refuge in it. His culpability is less severe than the rest of the family.

Dr Maliki also wanted to know, being shocked by Nur Aini's conduct, what did she do and what was her background. At that time that she harboured Mas Selamat, Nur Aini was a trainee teacher. At the time of her arrest this year, she was working as a Malay Language teacher. There is, however, no indication that either she or her parents subscribed to the radical ideology held by Mas Selamat. They had failed to differentiate right from wrong when they decided to help Mas Selamat. They should have known better.

Mr Viswa Sadasivan: I thank the Minister for making the statement and for his clarifications. Like my colleague, Mr Hri Kumar, I am quite disturbed that given the fact that there cannot be that many immediate members of the family, on the day of the escape, should it not have been standard operating procedure for the security forces to actually go down to the homes of the immediate family members? I would imagine that is standard operating procedure. Would the Minister please comment?

Column: 1510

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, let me start by saying that we are naturally disappointed that despite the intensive and massive effort made to track him down, Mas Selamat managed to slip through and to take shelter with Asmom and his family. That having been said, the Member will remember that I said that on Mas Selamat's side alone, excluding his wife's side, just taking into account his relatives, a loose network, numbered more than a hundred, and if you take into account contacts, they numbered many more. I do not want to go into details of when what was done or what surveillance was done because they are really operational security matters and it is not in the interests of our country for us to disclose these matters. However, the Member can be assured that what was done has been reviewed and I am satisfied that all the necessary steps were taken.

Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah): Could the Minister clarify whether the investigations thus far have uncovered evidence of a more formal support network for Mas Selamat or JI in Singapore. And, secondly, does the Minister consider that this episode has raised some lessons for investigative agencies for the future?

Mr Shanmugam: On the first question, there is no specific evidence of a larger support network for Mas Selamat in Singapore that continues to exist. However, I want to be very clear that we rule nothing out. We can only go on the basis of current evidence and current investigations and that is the best I can say on the basis of current investigations.

As to what lessons there are based on this episode, I think a number of statements had been made by Deputy Prime Minister Wong. The escape itself was obviously the focus. If I can summarise it, I think it was due to some oversight and complacency setting in at WRDC, and it is a point from which both ISD and the agencies have a lot of take-

Column: 1511

aways and, as a result, many changes have been made and WRDC itself is a very different institution right now. I think the key take-away from all of this is, each time a lapse occurs, we analyse what happened and we are determined not to repeat it and also do not allow ourselves to be brought down by that. As a result, ISD redoubled its efforts to make sure that they recovered from the fact that Mas Selamat escaped, and that was why through their efforts, we were able to get him back, albeit also with the assistance of the Malaysian authorities. But ISD never doubted that they could get him back and they did so.

Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Without casting aspersions on the Police force which I have got the greatest respect for, the Minister mentioned that Mas Selamat had not been in contact with this family for a number of years or for quite sometime, and the fact that four persons had been able to maintain their cool, when they were interrogated shortly after they had let Mas Selamat out of their house, would have shown that perhaps the interrogation process had been perfunctory or because the manpower was stretched that less than competent officers had been deployed to get in touch with these people. So, I am just wondering whether or not this would be part of the review that will be in process as well as to what sort of officers must be deployed for criminals, especially people like Mas Selamat, if at all such a thing should happen again. I hope not.

Mr Shanmugam: I think Ms Lee is drawing pretty large conclusions from a fairly narrow statement made by me. But let us go to the nub of the question. I said Asmom had been interviewed on 3rd March 2008 and he did not disclose anything. And does it necessarily lead to the conclusions that Ms Lee has drawn – that the investigators were either not experienced, or how is it that they were

Column: 1512

able to keep their cool and why is it that we were not able to get the fact that they had harboured Mas Selamat? Ms Lee is a lawyer and Members of the House will also appreciate that for there to be effective results out of an investigation, you get the best results when you know some of the facts and are able to corner the person.

I had pointed out in my statement that the intelligence at that point in time did not warrant us to take any other view, other than that what Asmom was saying was accurate. In October 2010, we knew more and it, therefore, enabled us to get a different result from the interviews that took place. It depends on what facts you have. Straight off, if you go and ask someone and they are prepared to lie through and through, it is not often easy and I think we should stop way short of talking about whether the investigative procedures were good or not good. But I can assure Ms Lee, not just in ISD but also in the Police force as a whole, we take the investigative process very seriously. Deputy Prime Minister Wong had started out a process where we train a cadre of investigative officers who are very skilled and who would be thoroughly professional. That is in the interests of everyone. That process is independently continuing and nothing here necessitates a review of that process.

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister if this family had been on the radar of being counselled when Mas Selamat was first arrested, it took him two days, very deliberate planning, to make his way to Tampines to this family. So he must have read this family very well for him to go through with it, and even have that family coerced or otherwise cooperate with him. So I just want to want to know if this family was, in the first place, within our radar for counselling when he was first arrested.

Column: 1513

Mr Shanmugam: There was no indication to us that this particular family was in any need of counselling. I think a better answer to the Member's question would be this: the Member had sort of assumed that Mas Selamat thought he would get help and deliberately made his way to this flat. I think in the Statement that I have made I pointed out that Mas Selamat thought that there would only be one person in the house, Nur Aini. That seems to have been his primary motive, not because he thought that the entire family would help him.

3.32 pm

Column: 1513

BILLS INTRODUCED: