THREAT OF TERRORISM (Motion)

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, in October 1987, whilst many others were financially dislocated by the mighty Wall Street crash, my family and I had an experience of the terrestrial kind in Los Angeles. In a matter of days, we were shaken by a mighty earthquake that measured 6 on the Richter scale, along with several equally earth-shaking aftershocks. I can still recall vividly the sight of the refrigerator swaying to and fro with each roll of the earth.

The earthquake experience left an indelible mark on our lives, as we suddenly realised that we were vulnerable to something that could inflict widespread damage, and the occurrence of which could not be accurately predicted nor prevented.

Sir, every kid, down to my son who was in preschool then, was taught what earthquakes were and what steps to take when the earth shook, such as getting underneath the table, running out into open spaces. I also marvelled at how the local residents responded and rallied around each other. They were not intimidated by the damage that a nasty earthquake could wreak, but they carried on their lives, fully aware that they could face personal adversity when it happened.

In short, everyone saw the earthquake for what it was, paid attention to the possibilities of its occurrences, and was psychologically prepared. The local government obviously sprang into action when the earthquake did strike, but they did not act alone. People were ready and responded without panic despite the widespread damage to the highways and personal property.

Sir, I have used the analogy of the earthquake to urge all Singaporeans to take a personal interest in the terrorist threat, that is both real and serious.

Countering terrorism is every Singaporean's responsibility. We have built this nation from virtually nothing. We have achieved this precious level of racial and religious harmony with a lot of effort. We must, therefore, as the Minister had urged, jealously guard what we have as Singaporeans. It is not enough that the Government is actively mounting efforts to prevent or ensure preparedness because, like that for an earthquake, no amount of preparation can insulate us from the effects of terrorism.

Unlike the earthquake, terrorism is not a natural disaster. Terrorism is a deliberate act of man, involving violent action for political purpose, according to the Cambridge International English Dictionary.

Sir, we may debate on whether we agree with this definition. Regardless of the purpose for terrorism, every Singaporean must try to see terrorism for what it truly is. We must not be taken in by what it purports to be, for example, that it is the result or the ambition of a particular race or religion, which is being suppressed or oppressed. Sir, terrorism is terrorism, pure and simple, and when undertaken in Singapore, attacks us as a people.

Hence, not only must every Member of this House support the motion, but also must every Singaporean who cares about Singapore and who treasures the cohesion and harmony that we have painstakingly built up over all these years.

Sir, our greatest defence against terrorism is a cohesive people. Every Singaporean, regardless of age, race or religion, has a responsibility to ensure the following:

Firstly, that we are not intimidated by terrorist threats or acts, extensive or inhumane, though they are. We will not allow ourselves to be cowed into living our lives in dread and fear;

Secondly, that we will not be misled by what these acts pretend to be. We must be clear and mindful that terrorism proponents frequently attempt to masquerade themselves as champions for a religious cause. For example, the Jemaah Islamiyah group portrays itself as an Islamic organisation. We must always ask ourselves what the true motive could be, differentiate carefully and not jump to conclusions, as in this case, to wrongly assume that all Muslims are somehow involved;

Thirdly, that we will instead be vigilant and quick to dismiss any suggestion or speculation that there is friction between the different racial or religious groups which has given rise to acts of aggression; and

Finally, that we will act as one people, by consciously reaching out to each other towards better understanding and trust, and by rallying behind the Government against terrorism.

Sir, I would like to echo my colleagues' sentiments and suggest that the Government pay special attention to educating the young on what terrorism is, and how to respond to threats or acts.

Recently, I carried out a straw poll on the recipients of the Edusave awards and saw many clueless faces as I asked how many of them were aware of the terrorist threats. Many have little association to, nor appreciation for, what terrorism can entail. I believe it is vital for them to have some perspective, hard though it may be to explain some of these serious issues.

Sir, I have witnessed in many countries how the different racial and religious groups barely tolerate each other and how palpable the lack of trust and harmony is. Singapore is truly different, but our current level of social cohesion does not happen by chance. We have to work at it. Whilst the Government clearly has the responsibility for macro planning for countering terrorism, it is in every Singaporean's interest to do his utmost to preserve the precious aspects of being Singaporean. In this regard, I would like to urge my fellow Chinese Singaporeans to reach out even more, so as to increase our appreciation for the other cultures and religions. As the majority racial group in Singapore, we have the responsibility to ensure that we keep out any divisive attempts.

With that, Sir, I register my full support for the

motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.07 pm until 3.30 pm Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm