COUNTERING THREAT OF JIHADIST RADICALISATION

COUNTERING THREAT OF JIHADIST RADICALISATION: 1.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what has been done in Singapore to counter the continuing threat of jihadist radicalisation; (b) whether there are sufficient measures in place to prevent radical individuals from teaching in local mosques and other Islamic institutions; and (c) what more can be done to prevent such radicalisation.

2.

Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in view of the increasing availability of, and ease in accessing, terrorist-related information on the Internet and other channels (a) what are the Ministry's plans in managing self-radicalisation amongst Singaporeans; and (b) how can Singaporeans help in tackling this issue.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos. 1 and 2 together?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, jihadist radicalisation has become a global phenomenon of concern, and Singapore is certainly not immune from it. Some radicals, including many members of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terrorist group, are actively indoctrinated and recruited by extremist groups. Others, like Muhammad Fadil Abdul Hamid, are radicalised in the course of their individual quests for answers to personal religious and ideological questions, which unfortunately led them down a misguided and

Column: 617

dangerous road towards deviant teachings that advocate violence.

Self-radicalised individuals are no less dangerous to society than those indoctrinated by extremist groups. Such individuals include Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber who tried to set off a bomb on an aircraft flying to Detroit, and Faisal Shazad, who tried to set off a bomb in Times Square, New York. Both started out as self-radicalised individuals and because they were unchecked, went on to establish links with terrorist groups which facilitated their bid to undertake militant jihad. Fortunately, in both cases, their bombing attempts were unsuccessful. Had they succeeded, the outcomes would have been horrific.

To counter the spread and influence of jihadist ideology in Singapore, we must take a multi-pronged approach. We must not allow radicals to spread their ideas here. Our mosques and other Islamic institutions must be vigilant, and keep a close watch on individuals who teach, preach or conduct activities at their premises. Foreign religious teachers and speakers need to obtain a letter of support from MUIS before the Ministry of Manpower will grant them an Employment Pass or a Work Pass to teach or give speeches on religion here.

Muhammad Anwar Jailani’s case has shown that attention must be paid to religious teachers who preach and instruct others. Local Islamic institutions and Muslims should only engage properly qualified teachers accredited under the Asatizah Recognition Scheme, which MUIS introduced in 2005. More and sustained publicity for this scheme is needed to raise awareness, so that Singaporeans know to check the list of accredited persons before engaging a religious teacher. MUIS will also explore

Column: 618

other ways, including legal options, to ensure that Islamic institutions do not engage or allow unaccredited individuals to conduct religious activities.

ISD has also worked with MDA to reach out to bookstores to ensure that they do not carry extremist literature, whether in paper or electronic form. These efforts will be stepped up and firm action against errant distributors and retailers will be taken.

Terrorists are increasingly exploiting the Internet as an effective means to propagate their radical ideology, promote their cause and recruit potential operatives. To extend their reach, their messages have been posted online in different languages, including English.

There have been suggestions that the Government should block these radical websites. However, this would be a futile exercise. The architecture and reach of the Internet make it practically impossible to interdict all radical websites. Moreover, there are several thousand such sites and the number continues to grow. If we bring down one website, it can easily resurface under another name or in another jurisdiction. To be effective, we would not only have to block terrorist websites but also popular social networking platforms like YouTube and Facebook, which would clearly not be practicable. The same Internet that empowers ordinary individuals unfortunately also serves radicals.

Since we cannot expect to perfectly shield Singaporeans from exposure to jihadist ideology, education is critical to inoculate our society against jihadist ideology.

For many years now, ISD has held briefings and talks to schools and community groups, to share its concerns about radicalisation. The Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) too has used

Column: 619

public talks, forums, media interviews and written articles to alert the general Muslim public to the falsehoods of jihadist ideology. Several other Muslim leaders and organisations have also initiated and organised community counter-ideology programmes. The common goal of these efforts is to help Singaporeans who chance across radical teachings in the guise of religion to see through the falsehood and not be led astray. These community efforts are a positive development and we hope even more community organisations and leaders will step forward to do likewise.

As for Muslim Singaporeans who may be radicalised while pursuing studies overseas, MUIS will strengthen its capacity and resources to reach out to them, and hopefully convince them not to enrol in radical institutions where they are at risk of being subverted by radical ideas. This would include more measures to advise on the choice of schools, as many commentators in the media have suggested, and stationing officers overseas to keep in close touch with young Muslim Singaporeans studying there, to ensure that they are rightly guided, supported and remain connected to Singapore’s development and contemporary issues.

Singaporeans themselves must play their part to help loved ones turn away from the path of radicalisation. They must not turn a blind eye or be unwilling to heed warning signs. Fadil and Muhammad Thahir bin Shaik Dawood had let people close to them know that they were interested in militant jihad, and these people had noticed that they were surfing radical websites. However, none of them sought help from the religious or Government authorities. Instead, they brushed aside Fadil and Thahir’s jihadist talk as not serious. Had they contacted the authorities at an earlier stage, things might have turned out quite differently for Fadil and Thahir, and the two of them

Column: 620

might not have had to be detained or placed on Restriction Orders.

Early intervention is the best way to save a relative or friend from the road to radicalisation. It gives him the best chance to be guided back to the correct path. This is the socially and morally responsible thing to do; it should not be seen as betrayal, because such action helps both the individual and our society. We should not be paranoid. But as a community, we need to be discerning enough to distinguish mere "viewpoints" from "something more sinister", and have the moral courage to seek help from MUIS and the Government authorities when required. Not reporting suspicious warning signs could not only hurt innocent lives but also strain communal and familial relations if the individual becomes thoroughly radicalised and does something disastrous. Reporting warning signs is thus a necessary first step towards countering radicalisation in our midst, and I can assure you that no further action will be taken if it turns out to be a false alarm.

Sir, as for the concern about disunity in the society and community, over the years since we uncovered the JI in 2001, Singaporeans – Muslims and non-Muslims alike – have stood together in our efforts against terrorism. Non-Muslim Singaporeans have not looked with suspicion at fellow Singaporean Muslims because they understand that the JI members and self-radicals are just a few misguided individuals. Muslim Singaporeans have also undertaken many proactive measures to address the problem of radicalisation. I believe that there is good reason to be confident that Singaporeans will be resilient and will continue to stand together against the ever-evolving terrorist threat.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister, for the comprehensive answer. My supplementary question is: are the

Column: 621

radicalised individuals who have been arrested by the ISD this time merely just a few misguided individuals or is there a more deep-rooted problem in Singapore and how do we ensure that Singapore remains safe against the threat of terrorism?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I believe our Muslim community is moderate and not one where extremism freely thrives or is accommodated. However, what these recent arrests tell us is that notwithstanding this, there are individuals who may be susceptible to the dangers of radicalisation, and no society is immuned to this threat. Singapore, certainly, is no exception. We, therefore, cannot rule out the possibility of some Singaporeans being radicalised in future. There may also be already radicalised Singaporeans whom the security agencies are not aware of. The Home Team agencies will do their utmost to deal with the terrorist threat but there is no such thing as a perfect intelligence and enforcement system that can guarantee the detection of every threat and the prevention of every incident from occurring.

Even in America and the United Kingdom, with the deep commitment and the enormous resources post 9-11 to tackle the jihadist terrorist threat and with the numerous successes they have had in foiling several plots, some attacks still manage to get launched. In the UK, it was fortunate that perpetrators of the Glasgow Airport attack in 2007 were ultimately unsuccessful, like the Christmas Day airline plot last year and the Time Square bombing plot this year. They were unsuccessful because the devices failed to detonate as intended. Unfortunately, in the case of the Fort Hood incident, the perpetrator successfully staged an attack. Lives were lost and innocent people were hurt.

Column: 622

In Singapore, we have to be prepared for the possibility that one day, a terrorist could slip through our defences and carry out attacks in Singapore. This is the reason why we have worked hard at developing our consequence-management capabilities even as we strengthen our intelligence and defence efforts to prevent an incident through early detection. In addition, even though we already enjoy a level of communal harmony, which is treasured by all Singaporeans and which has been noted and commented on by many visitors, we do not take this for granted and assume that an attack will never take place in Singapore which will affect our social cohesion.

This is why we started a community engagement programme in 2006 to build networks of trust among the communities in order to shore up our resilience. Within our community, we are also fortunate to have our Muslim religious leaders who are rational and sensible and who have the moral courage and conviction to speak up against jihadist terrorism. This is most apparent with the members of the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG). These members have actually interviewed and met the JI detainees and they understand fully the threat of terrorist doctrines and their implications on religious harmony and the security of Singapore if these are unchecked.

Our Muslim religious leaders, whether it is in the RRG or other groups must together work with MUIS to press on to enhance the protection of the vulnerable members of our Muslim community from radicalisation. Our Muslim leaders have been and must continue also to be united against this fight. Unlike some other countries where it is difficult to find a unified voice among the Muslim leaders because of the different groups' interests, our Muslim leaders have shown, time and again, a commitment to the common good not just for the well-being of the Muslim community but they also understand fully

Column: 623

the interests of the wider community and the national interests of Singapore, which they are a part of.

I, therefore, truly hope that Singaporeans will never have to experience the pain of a terrorist attack but if we should ever face such an attack, then we should ensure that we are prepared and that our sober and balanced responses as a society ensure that we are resilient and able to recover from such an attack. How we react to an attack as a people is crucial because the injury that a terrorist incident inflicts on a society is deepest and long-lasting when it permanently scars communal relations with mistrust and animosities.

In the event of a successful attack, we must not overreact hastily and in the heat of a moment overturn the entire system which has worked well and which has provided the safety and security to Singaporeans in the last 10 years.

Hindsight is always perfect vision. The dots which are significant after an event are always most obvious. Even as we learn from mistakes, our response must always be rational, considered and carefully calibrated and deliberated. In the meantime, we will and must continue to refine and improve our defences through the Home Team working together with our foreign partners, as well as through our people, to keep up with the dynamics and evolving threat of jihadist terrorism.

Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Marine Parade): Sir, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the detailed and comprehensive answer. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, I would like to know if there are clear processes in place to help staff and stakeholders of institutions, such as schools, tertiary institutions, mosques, madrasahs and other related organisations, address this self-radicalisation issue, should they be unsure of handling individuals faced by these sentiments face-to-face.

Column: 624

Secondly, despite having a holistic approach of creating awareness on the dangers of terrorism through public seminars, community dialogues and workshops, can the Ministry consider implementing more outreach efforts in engaging all segments of the Singapore society? This is in view of the increasing penetration of terrorist-related information on the Internet.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, over the last few years, there have been extensive efforts in educating the different segments of our community – whether they are schools, workplaces, religious institutions – on the threat of jihadist ideology. In fact, the RRG members have spoken up on many occasions in private gatherings and big gatherings in mosques and to different groups of people who come and visit us to discuss the actions that were taken. The ISD, together with some community groups, has also gone to schools to hold seminars and talks with the students and teachers to help them understand the threats of jihadist ideology, and this effort has been going on for many years. In fact, with the community engagement programme, the Government has been engaging the different segments of a community. For the schools, in particular, there is a strong effort by the Education Ministry in ensuring that the students fully understand such threats, at the same time know how to deal with them. And particularly for the principals and teachers, they also know how to recognise individuals who may be facing problems and who are unable to reconcile the issues themselves and who may need help. From what we know, teachers and principals have no issue about contacting the security agencies to tell them about the concerns that they have and seek help from the authorities who will then talk to the individual students concerned. The same thing applies to the workplace, the employers' organisations, and so on.

Column: 625

These are the efforts that have been going on for many years.

Even for the media, we have also worked closely with the media, particularly with some of the journalists covering such stories, to help them understand the seriousness of a threat like this to us and in the event of a successful attack, how then do we deal with this as a community. Because how the press reports an incident very much affects how the people react to it subsequently. So we need all segments of a community to be involved, and this effort will carry on.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, from the cases of those radicalised by external teachers who preach militant jihad, whether there is a profile of Singaporeans who are vulnerable to such influences and whether their radicalisation is linked not only to external influences but also internal developments in the country and their community such as unhappiness with certain policies, their lot in life or their circumstances.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I think it will be simplistic for me to just outline a profile and then people say, "Okay, I will try to recognise these individuals when I see them". To do so will be to mislead people and sometimes we may let our guard down when we see certain signs which may not appear right but it does not seem to fit the profile that I have outlined. Having said that, let me say that from the cases that we have investigated, radicalisation actually cuts across all groups – gender, ethnicity, educational qualifications, socio-economic background, and so on. Foreign cases also reflect the same kind of traits. That said, we have also noticed that many of the radicalised Singaporeans are actually weak in their religious grounding. Therefore, they want

Column: 626

to seek out what they think is the correct ideology and, unfortunately, they went to the wrong places or talked to the wrong people and therefore they cannot discern what is right or what is wrong. And when they do not seek the correct guidance from recognised azatisahs or religious teachers, then certainly they will face more issues and also pose problems to the community.

In the case of Muhammad Fadil, for example, he is no different from other JI members, even though he is self-radicalised. From the groups that we arrested over the years from 2002 onwards, he is just like any other person of these groups that have been radicalised. We know that from the groups that we detained, there are young people like Fadil, there are also middle-aged people, and there are also those in their 30s. Unfortunately for the younger people, their vulnerability can also be borne out by the youthful idealism that they may have, coupled with an inability to reason and to question the information given to them. As a result, they are unable to tell what is the right thing to do.

On the question of how we can prevent radicalisation, as I have said, we can try to keep out radical influences through measures like education, community vigilance, counter-ideological talks, and so on. But there is no perfect shield that can prevent Singaporeans from being influenced by radical ideology. If a person looked at the wrong places, talked to the wrong people, they may get radicalised. Increasingly, because of the use of the Internet, some individuals get radicalised without others knowing about it or with very few people knowing about it, and that is where it is important for family members and their friends to tell the authorities, MUIS or religious teachers about such a change in behaviour of a person, so that things can be done to help the person not to get onto the wrong path.

Column: 627

Mr Speaker: Mr Sadasivan, last question.

Mr Viswa Sadasivan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this – a concern that arises as a result of these incidents is an erosion of trust between people of different religious groups that could lead to finger-pointing or even victimisation. How does the Government monitor these developments? And if we come across such situations, how do we handle and manage them on the ground?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, over the years, after the various detentions that have been conducted or made against JI members as well as other groups like the pro-MILF type, and the self-radicalised cases since 2007, we have been in very close touch with the community leaders, not only the religious leaders and the Muslim leaders but also community leaders of all ethnic groups, and also those in the business, unions, and so on. We also get feedback from members of the public, through REACH, and also through the press and the grassroots network, and also through direct interactions. From there, we have a sense that generally Singaporeans are quite balanced in their response to any arrest that we have made so far. The more information we share with the leaders, the better they understand the problems and, therefore, the better they are able to lead their community and to respond and deal with such issues. And Singaporeans understand that the Muhammad Fadil's case, as well as the other radicalised cases, is just an isolated case not representative of the whole community.

As I have said in my main answer, the great majority of our Muslims are moderate and they are part of Singapore, part of our community and we have social cohesion over the years. So they understand that very well. Therefore, whenever we come across individuals

Column: 628

who may have other views, we try to understand what is it that they are concerned about, in what way we can address them and therefore try to deal with those issues on a private basis, which is much better. If the issue has been taken out, then we discuss it openly. The main thing is that we must be frank with our people that if we have a problem, we resolve it, and not sweep it under the carpet.