THREAT OF TERRORISM

Debate resumed.

Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the White Paper.

The events of the past year have shown that we are not immune from the phenomenon of radicalisation of parts of Muslim societies throughout the world. As I say that, let me make one point absolutely clear. We must not fall into the pattern of thinking that radicalisation has a special association with Islam. All religions and many societies have their extremists. They all abuse their religions and societies. For us now, however, the White Paper raises the issue of threats to our society posed by some in the name of Islam. How do we as a society react to this? We consider that one has to bear in mind the realities, and those realities are that:

(i) There is little we can do about the wave of radicalisation that is sweeping through parts of the world, including Islamic societies.

(ii) We are not in a position to alter the policies of larger countries, some of which are questionable and which are understandably causing deep frustration and a sense of impotence among many Muslims throughout the world and catalysing them into reacting. These reactions are being tapped into by some leaders for thoroughly sickening ends. There is little we can do about that.

(iii) These global forces and ideas will certainly impact on our Muslim community.

So, what do we do? Do we sit back suspicious of our Muslim Singaporeans and harbouring silent resentment? Or do we pretend that everything is all right, nothing is happening, and that life can carry on as it always has? Neither of these are sensible options. The only option which is in the enlightened self-interest of all Singaporeans is to reach across racial lines and build ties that bind us more closely while increasing our security measures. There is a need to build stronger ties because, at the end of the day, the battle is for the mind. Do we win or do the terrorists win the ideological battle? If we win, we cut terrorism from its base. One factor that will determine the fate of the ideological battle is the strength of our inter-racial ties. And while I talk about victory, we have to recognise that the battle is not easy and there can probably be no complete victory. It is not possible to always or easily triumph for our beliefs based on fate, but we must try. We have, as a society, always tried to increase the strength of our inter-racial ties. But I think the circumstances are now more opportune than they have been for a while to do this.

To understand that, we have to look at two periods, pre-September 11, and post-September 11.

Pre-September 11, I felt that the relationship between the races was moving in the right direction, but the movement was slow. In particular, there were a number of psychological barriers between our Muslim Singaporeans and the rest.

There were a number of reasons for this. I will deal with two. First, in our competitive society, by and large, our Muslim Singaporeans have done less well. That built in some defensiveness. Second, I think, it was ingrained in the psyche of many, though not all, non-Muslim Singaporeans that somehow our Muslim Singaporeans were less competitive, and less able. These feelings and reactions were reinforced by the relative insularity of the lives which many Singaporeans lead. Those who were involved in community work and had to reach across racial lines could overcome such reactions. But not many had such opportunities.

Our Muslim Singaporeans, of course, picked up on those feelings. And our Muslim Singapore society stood feeling that it was not adequately respected by sections of Singaporean society. I would add that these are only my personal views, and others may well disagree. We cannot prove or disprove these things. We can only look straight into our hearts and minds.

I believe that for these and other reasons, there was a degree of resentment among Muslim Singaporeans and a reaffirmation of links within the Muslim society.

When I say all this, I do accept that, in formal terms, we have done most things correctly. The Constitution provides for equality, and we practise meritocracy, sometimes almost brutally. But societies are not built on such formal institutions alone. Feelings and attitudes are also important. And at that level, my view is that many of our Muslim Singaporeans did not quite feel that they were being accepted as equals. I believe that we have done better than many countries which have a mixed racial composition. But the fault lines and differences are still there.

I also believe that these factors contributed to the psychological barriers that I have referred to. It was, for example, difficult to get Malay participation in community activities proportionate to our Malay population.

But since September 11th, and more particularly since the JI arrests, there appears to be a change in mood both among Muslim and non-Muslim Singaporeans. Many of our Muslim Singaporeans appear to have been shocked into reacting. They want to make the point that they are loyal Singaporeans. There is greater openness. Malay organisations have come forward to denounce extremism and terrorism. Highly symbolic visits are being made to places of worship.

In this context, what should non-Muslim Singaporeans do? We have a serious opportunity to rejig the attitudes that are developing. We have to show, with sincerity, that we respect and value our Muslim Singaporeans and that we want to build deep links. Our own mindsets have to change. We must treat our Muslim Singaporeans in our heart of hearts with respect. We must show empathy for their problems but that must not mutate into disrespect.

When I talk about reaction here, I do not mean the reaction of political leadership, both Malay and non-Malay. At the level of the community and political leadership, the issues have been understood. I am referring to the reaction of the Singaporeans in the street. And the situation arises because unlike the leadership, for most Singaporeans, the opportunities and need for interacting closely and with empathy across racial lines are limited. We, therefore, need an attitudinal change in all Singaporeans, both Malay and non-Malay. If Singaporeans react to Malay under-performance by saying, "Well, the Malays are less clever, and it is a Malay problem, which we will leave to the Malays to sort out," then we will quickly set into old patterns. We will lose the opportunity that the present mood has created. And we will increase divisions and allow the ideologies sweeping the world now to have a greater influence on Muslim Singaporeans.

Muslim Singaporeans also have a duty now to react in a way which will encourage closer ties. For example, over the years, practices have developed, which many of us have observed, which differentiate rather than bring us together, and these should be relooked at by the Muslim Singapore community. And all Singaporeans must think about this carefully. There has to be a whole new energy in engaging across racial lines. It is not easy for a deep-seated attitudinal change to take place in society as a whole. But that change must be an ideal, and leaders have a duty to try and make a change in that direction.

I would make two other points. For too long now, too many subjects have been taboo, if they appear to touch upon religious practices. But freedom to practise a religion should not mean a total ban on discussion of practices which may hinder a healthy, economically productive life and active citizenry, particularly where these practices impact on others in society. We need to move towards accepting debate in areas which affect our social togetherness, even if this touches on aspects of religious behaviour. The leaders of all religions in Singapore should encourage debates in specific areas, albeit the debate has to be handled sensibly.

Second, it is a fact that our Malay Singaporeans have been performing better and better in many fields. But we need to catalyse that progress in the interest of a stable and inclusive society. It is in all our interest that there are Malay icons of success, wherever possible. The official policy is meritocracy and it is heresy to suggest anything else. But I will be mildly heretical. There must be opportunities, without affecting the core principle of meritocracy, for there to be some form of action which will see Malays in important positions in greater numbers than they are now.

I say this because while the improvements shown by statistics are important, it is necessary to put a human touch to success. Successful role models offer hope.

True, initially, there could be a feeling that a person owes his position more to his race than his ability. But provided that he or she is, in fact, able, and the principle of meritocracy is not seriously prejudiced, these doubts can be overcome. More importantly, this will give considerable psychological boost to the rest of the Malay society, and the way non-Malays perceive Malays will also change faster.

All of this does not mean that overnight, the issue of the impact - both positive and negative - of ideas fermenting in Muslim societies across the world on our Muslim Singaporeans will disappear. We are dealing with ideological issues which have great power. But I think these steps will help in ameliorating the negative impact, at least among those Muslim Singaporeans who have a moderate outlook.

As I say this, I will also say this to our Malay Singaporeans: be realistic. Do not push beyond what society as a whole can accept. For example, I think the whole issue of Malays in the SAF is a red herring. Do not make that the litmus test for success. It makes for good political sound bite but is otherwise meaningless. Look at successful minority communities and other societies. Their success is based upon educational, cultural and economic achievements, not how many Generals they have. The issue of Malay performance in the SAF is one which really the Malay society should put on the back burner. The issue can be taken further only at the rate at which the whole society feels comfortable.

Sir, terrorism in all its forms must be condemned. In order to starve terrorists of their potential base, we have to build a socially inclusive society. And I end my speech by saying that we have, I think, a serious window of opportunity to move decisively to build stronger linkages among all Singaporeans. For the sake of our and our children's future, I hope that we will be able to seize that opportunity.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of the Home Affairs Minister.

The scourge of terrorism affects every nation in the world. Even the superpower countries, like the USA and Russia, are not free from terrorist attacks. There were terrible terrorist attacks of the World Trade Center in the USA, the Moscow Theatre in Russia, the blowing up of the American Embassy building in Nairobi, Kenya, and the recent bombings in Bali. Thousands of innocent lives have been lost to those dastardly attacks.

Terrorist threats to Singapore are real and serious. No civilised country in the world is immune from the attacks of terrorists. Singapore is no exception. With the infiltration of the militant Jemaah Islamiyah groups into Singapore from Indonesia, Singapore shall always be in danger of terrorist attacks. Singapore must do everything it can to defend itself. Although our present situation is not as serious as that of Israel, we must learn from Israel's example. Every man, woman and child in Israel is taught to be alert and to be able to identify possible dangers posed by terrorists. I have an Israeli friend who visited Singapore. I took him to a shopping complex. On entering the building, he immediately pointed out to me the plastic shopping bag that was lying on the floor and the rubbish bin that was not emptied. He said that those items carelessly left in our shopping complex would not be allowed to be similarly left in a building in Israel for fear that bombs may be planted in them. I hope that we too in Singapore can really be on such an alert situation. I hope that all terrorist infiltrators that come to Singapore can be nabbed in time and not be given a chance to plant any bombs in our midst. Should even a single bomb, which escapes detection, go off is one too many.

In the 1960s, a terrorist bomb went off. It was during the time of confrontation with Indonesia. At that time, I was purchasing a book at a bookstore called Marican & Sons at Orchard Road. The building in which the bookstore was situated had since been demolished to build a hotel. The bomb went off in the building known as MacDonald House, about 400 yards from where I stood. Even at that distance, I could hear the loud blast, and the doors of the shop shook. I believe a bank employee was killed in that explosion. Of course, the planting of that bomb was utterly senseless. There was no strategic importance in that building which was mainly used as a bank at that time. Then, that was the way the terrorists operated.

The other incident which I would like to recall was also in the 1960s, also during the Confrontation period. Luckily for me, that bomb planted by terrorists at the beach at Katong did not go off; otherwise, I may not be standing here today. On that night, I was sleeping in a room in a block of flats situated about 10-15 metres from where the bomb was placed. My room was facing the beach where the bomb was planted. I was told later that it was a 25-pounder and that if it had gone off, the whole wall of the building facing the beach would have been blown off. I think I would have been killed by the blast. Such is the devastation that could be wrecked by a 25-pounder. I am just wondering what havoc would have been wrought with a bomb comprising several tons of explosives, which was reported that the Jemaah Islamiyah members were trying to purchase and make.

Yes, Singapore must be vigilant. We must not allow even one bomb to go off in our country. I support the Government's firm action taken against members of the Jemaah Islamiyah. My party, the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), welcomes the Government's decision to introduce the White Paper on the JI detentions. The White Paper provides the factual background to the detentions and show how appropriate the Internal Security Act is in dealing with threats to national security. I agree with the Government that counter measures must be taken against the terrorist threats. Terrorists have international connections. The JI in Singapore has connections with outsiders which have an international character. It is therefore only right that Singapore seeks the assistance of other countries in combating terrorism in Singapore.

As regards promoting cohesion and religious harmony, my party hopes that, with the discussion of the issues in the White Paper, Singaporeans can understand that increased religiosity need not necessarily lead to religious militancy. The SDA urges the Government to develop all avenues to increase religious and racial tolerance so that Singaporeans can strengthen the social fabric. In this way, Singaporeans can achieve social cohesiveness with the ability to identify and reject ideology that preaches violence and extreme hatred. The SDA also hopes that the Government, whilst taking care of the interests of the majority, does not neglect the interests of the minority or simply brush aside, especially the interests of the minority that concern the practice of their religion.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs.

Sir, 9/11 was a turning point in the history of the world. It changed our lives. It changed the world's political and economic landscape. Some however still thought that New York was far, far away from us. And Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda were deemed to be distant from our shores.

But Singaporeans had a rude awakening when the JI network in Singapore was uncovered and 15 JI members were arrested in December 2001. In the following year, any lingering doubts about JI network and terrorist threats evaporated with the Bali bomb blasts of October 2002.

Sir, to put it in perspective, the Al-Qaeda and JI fanaticism and terrorism were brewing for quite a while. It took them many years of painstaking preparation and indoctrination. Most striking was the global coverage and the fanatical zeal of the terrorists. But by now, all know that this new wave of fanatical terrorism could strike anywhere, any time. And the problem will not go away overnight. It is a severe and long-term problem that will persist and trouble us over a long period of time. To counter, therefore, and overcome this problem, we require and must have clear vision, right strategy, unwavering determination, patience, fortitude and internal cohesion.

Sir, the seeds of such religious fanaticism have been sown in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Funded and fuelled by petrol dollars of the Middle East, it spread to the rest of the world. Singapore, as a small city state, is not immune from world currents and terrorist threats.

Some may ask, in this context, why another JI report, bringing it up again and again. There is some unease that this is given another airing. But it is better that we discuss and address this terrorist threat openly, rather than sweep it under the carpet and pretend that all is well. We should brainstorm, find common ground and forge a united and effective counter strategy. In this way, I trust we will gain insights and a better understanding of the issues involved. I am sure we will emerge from the debate stronger, as one united people, one united nation of Singaporeans.

Sir, in this context, we have to reassess and manoeuvre fast to stay afloat in these troubled times. We must bear in mind that we face an elusive enemy who is prepared to die for a cause, including suicide bombing, if necessary. This is not conventional war but a battle for the hearts and minds of the people. Singapore has been fortunate so far in escaping from JI bomb blast. We have managed to nip the problem in the bud with the timely arrests of the JI members. We must commend and thank the ISD, the police and the SAF for doing a wonderful job in safeguarding our security and maintaining our peace. Bravo, and well done! We are thankful for your services.

However, this does not mean that we are insulated from terrorist threats or that no bombs will ever go off in Singapore. No one can guarantee that a terrorist attack will not occur. All we can do is to take all the necessary preventive measures and prepare for the worst, while hoping for the best. If you think about it, Singapore could well be very high on the list of JI targets in the region, given our strong support for counter-terrorism and our very success in preventive measures so far. Indeed, the JI network is extensive in the region, spreading and straddling Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines.

Preventive and counter measures must therefore also be regional in scope. This means that the authorities and the security agencies in the region must pull their resources together, share intelligence and have a unified and integrated counter strategy. No country in this region should allow their territory to be used as a training ground, sanctuary, or breeding ground for the terrorists.

Our neighbours should realise that the terrorists are our common enemy. If we do not deal with the extremists in our midst, they will undermine and destroy the governments in the region, one by one. Therefore, I appeal to the governments in the region to sink whatever differences they have, to work in tandem and deal with this clear and present terrorist threat. There is indeed no other way.

Sir, this White Paper gives an interesting insight into the profile of the JI detainees. They have average and above average intelligence, and received good education, some with polytechnic and college diplomas. Most of them have good jobs, including appointments as managers and technicians. Clearly, these JI members embarked on their misadventures not out of deprivation or social unrest. Why then did they do all this? They were definitely manipulated by extremists out to make mischief and out to capitalise on religious fanaticism.

JI members were not the mainstream of our Muslim community in Singapore. Indeed, they isolated themselves from the main Muslim organisations and indoctrinated their members in cells with their own brand of militancy and their own lingo, including what they call "JI-speak". The JI tactics sought to drive a wedge between the Muslim community and other Singaporeans. From the national perspective, therefore, one must ask: how can the JI and the larger Al-Qaeda threat be neutralised in ways that do not alienate the Singaporean Muslim community?

In my mind, first, there is a need to provide timely information so as to prevent unhealthy misconception from forming. Certainly, in the current context of the counter-terrorism in general, and the JI arrests in particular, the Government has been forthcoming in explaining the issues and the media is playing the role in educating members of the public. Information on arrests of the JI members under the ISA, for example, has been made readily available so as to prevent popular misconceptions developing about the treatment of the detainees. Family members of the detainees have visited the detainees to inquire into their well-being and the ISA Advisory Board members have reviewed their cases individually.

Besides the White Paper, there is the publication of the booklet on the Internal Security Act, giving useful information on the rationale of the legislation, past instances in which terrorists or subversive elements have threatened Singapore, and the conditions under which the Act may be used.

Second, there is a need to anticipate and prevent any misconception that the religious faith of a particular community is under attack. There must be trust and confidence that the Government is even handed, that the Government treats all racial and religious groups in Singapore fairly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt that the Government acts in the national interests, in a fair, non-discriminating and consistent manner, without fear or favour. But the promotion of trust and bonding is not the job of the Government alone. Singaporeans of all walks of life must and should play their part in ensuring that all communities live and work together in harmony. Singaporeans should interact with their neighbours, make them feel at ease and at home. In this context, employers should not consciously or unknowingly discriminate against Muslims, and ordinary non-Muslim Singaporeans should not treat their Muslim fellow citizens differently. Otherwise, the Muslim community may feel out of sync with the rest of society. Individual Muslims would then become vulnerable to those who whisper that their interests are best served by throwing in their lot with the likes of JI.

On the ground, I believe we can do more to promote understanding and bonding, particularly in the HDB heartland. If neighbours in the estates know each other personally and meet in block parties and other community events, the likelihood is, if there is a flare up or incident, we could talk to each other, we could call each other, and goodwill, common sense and peace will prevail.

Sir, the formation of the IRCC is a step in the right direction. We should do all things possible to make all races feel that they are all part and parcel of the community. For example, we should ensure that halal food is provided in community functions and some barbecue pits are reserved for Muslim residents.

Third, there is a need for modern Muslim leaders to proactively forestall attempts by fringe elements to shun them aside and radicalise the community. We should not forget that in early 2002, Zulfikar of Fateha.com sought to project himself as the true leader of Singapore's Muslims by engaging in a publicity campaign, accusing the Government of being anti-Islamic. Fortunately, the Muslim community rejected Zulfikar's claims, and settled the issue. However, other extremists will try again and again.

Therefore, against the wider backdrop of counter-terrorism, it is incumbent upon moderate Muslim organisations and leaders to closely monitor developments, anticipate possible political contingencies, and resolutely act to forestall extremist attempts to exploit certain issues. Moderate members of the Muslim community should speak up. Otherwise, there will be a vacuum, which would be exploited by extremists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I firmly believe that Singaporean Muslims are well aware of the dangers posed by the JI terrorists, and they want to have no part in the misplaced and misguided JI aims and tactics. We are encouraged that more and more moderate and fair-minded Muslim leaders and members are speaking up against JI and terrorism, and standing up for moderation and tolerance.

The Religious Harmony Code Committee has been visiting and having dialogues with various religious groups. What struck me, as a member of the committee, was that though these various religious groups uphold and practise their own religions, there is a common desire for moderation, tolerance and religious harmony. All groups know that we are better off together in our own country than apart or adrift.

This moderation and tolerance work well for Singapore. We should continue to build upon this foundation and further enhance religious and racial harmony. We must not forget that united we stand, and divided we fall.

Sir, in conclusion, terrorism can only be eliminated if the ideological basis can be removed and their funding through petro-dollars is stopped. The road ahead for counter-terrorism is going to be long and arduous. Singaporeans have to be patient as we wait for bigger forces to work it out in the world at large.

In the meantime, we should focus on the immediate problem, marshal our resources to deal with the problem, summon our will as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, marching together shoulder-to-shoulder to overcome the threat. We can do it together. For it is only as one people that we can succeed.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Heng Chee How (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs.

Sir, the White Paper on the Jemaah Islamiyah arrests described very clearly the threat of terrorism to the security of Singapore. I want to highlight three priorities today.

First, we must thoroughly expose their plot. Let us shine a bright light onto their dark methods and let Singaporeans see through their ploy, because when Singaporeans see through their ploy, it will be much harder for their schemes to work.

Second, we must tell Singaporeans how terrorism costs them dearly, even if bombs have not gone off. This is to make sure that Singaporeans are not complacent about the threat or its impact, and are motivated to act against it.

Third, we must give our strongest support to efforts by the Muslim leadership to fortify their community against spiritual hijacking by deviant groups and individuals. Prevention is much better than cure.

Sir, the JI is part of a conspiracy to overthrow the governments of the region and to seize political control. JI members who are Singaporeans have forgotten their duty and obligation to their country. Instead, they connived with the Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups to harm Singapore and Singaporeans. They willingly operated as the fifth column for international terrorism, being the internal spies and operatives for these external groups. They planned to bomb places and kill innocent people. And we all know that they had plans to build those bombs, and they almost succeeded.

How did they get people to join them? The JI deliberately scouted for and systematically indoctrinated unsuspecting Muslim believers into their ways of thinking. These perpetrators are particularly dangerous, because they abuse the power and authority of religion to deceive the faithful into sympathising with their criminal cause, and to do their bidding. This is spiritual manipulation of the most devious kind, and for the most heinous ends.

Such a technique of exploitation reminds me of the behaviour of the cuckoo bird. The female cuckoo purposely seeks out the nest of another species of bird in which to lay her egg. The cuckoo's egg resembles closely the look of the egg of the victim's species. So, when the parent bird from the victim's species leaves its nest unattended, the female cuckoo flies in and removes one of the victim's eggs, lays one of its own, and flies off before the unsuspecting victim returns.

The victim flies back to the nest - not knowing what has happened - and incubates the cuckoo egg, thinking that it was one of its own. That egg belonging to the cuckoo usually hatches before the victim's own eggs, and once that nestling hatches, it pushes out the other eggs from the nest, so that it can get all the food brought back by the foster parents. So, this young cuckoo is fed, cared for, and protected by the victim, and actually grows to be several times larger than the foster parents. All the while, the foster parents never suspected that they were exhausting themselves harbouring, feeding, protecting the very enemy that had killed all their young. In due course, that cuckoo grows up, flies off to find the next set of victims.

Sir, I quoted this analogy because I want to point out the importance of exposing such spiritual hijacking. The Muslim community in Singapore must not let the JI or any other group masquerade as one of its own, to be sheltered and nurtured. They must not let this JI cuckoo succeed.

At the same time, Sir, we must tell Singaporeans that although we have prevented a physical terrorist attack so far, there is already a cost economically and socially. And Singaporeans are paying for that with their jobs and with their future prospects.

Economically, the plans and actions of the JI and their Al-Qaeda masters have added more uncertainty and gloom to doing business in Southeast Asia. Foreign direct investments and tourism revenues in the region are two clear and big victims of that.

Perhaps when we talk about foreign direct investments and tourism revenues and the impact of terrorism on them, it may not be obvious to some Singaporeans that we are actually talking about the threat on jobs and livelihood of workers, their prospects and what they bring home to their families. Jobs have been lost, and many jobs made less secure because terrorism is scaring away investors, business and tourists from the region, and that includes Singapore. So, thanks to groups like the JI, Singaporeans will have an even harder time looking for jobs in an already difficult economic period.

Just like the cuckoo nestling that pushes eggs out of the nest, the JI's actions have pushed jobs out of the economy - jobs that unemployed Singaporeans of all races and religions need and would treasure.

Socially, the false claims by the JI that they are acting according to the precepts of Islam have tarred the image of the Muslim community. Those who are less aware may come away having the wrong impressions about Islam and about Muslims. Some others, whether they are companies or individuals, may start feeling uneasy, and become cagey in their interaction and dealings with Muslims.

If we deal with these challenges wrongly, the strong trust, mutual respect and tolerance that the different races and religions have so painstakingly forged over many years will be undermined. Social cohesion will then suffer. If social cohesion suffers, who wins? Nobody wins, except those who see the destruction of our multi-racial, multi-religious and meritocratic society as serving their purposes.

But who loses? Every peace-loving, fair-minded, level-headed, loyal Singaporean, regardless of race or religion. For, when social cohesion and trust are weakened, order is hard to maintain. Without order, there cannot be development. Without development, there will not be jobs. Without jobs, Singaporeans will suffer. The better life will become a pipe dream.

Clearly, if you are a Muslim worker applying for a job, you will want fair consideration to be given to your application on the basis of merit, and not become a victim of possible stereotyping that might arise from the JI's claim that it is Muslim. And that is absolutely right, because what the JI did is not your fault. And the best way to achieve this is by actively denying groups like the JI the chance to misappropriate the good name of Islam.

Equally clearly, if you are a non-Muslim Singaporean looking for work, you will hope that investors and businesses will base their operations here. You will hope that they expand their presence in Singapore and offer more jobs. You will not want your chances to find a job undercut by worries that businesses may have over security. You have nothing to do with the JI, so why should you allow them to harm your chances and your prospects?

So, let us be practical. It is in the collective interest of all Singaporeans, regardless of race and religion, to stand together and fight these terrorists and expose their lies. If we do not, we will end up like the eggs and nestling of the foster parent birds - pushed out of the nest to die - even though it was not their fault.

Sir, no matter how we look at the issue, it boils down to one fact: terrorism in general, and the dangerous motives and actions of the JI in particular, have harmed the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. Their actions and lies must be exposed. I applaud the efforts of the Muslim community and its leaders to resolutely and relentlessly safeguard the good name of their religion from the perverted beliefs and behaviour of the JI. This is absolutely critical for two reasons.

First, it authoritatively clarifies in the minds of Muslim believers that the JI's claims to being Islamic in its theology and practice are false. This removes the psychological hook that the JI has been using to tap sympathy from Muslim believers. And it makes it easier for all to focus objectively on considering the threat of terrorism and its implications, and not be deceived or swayed by the JI's cunning.

Second, through leadership by example, the Muslim community in Singapore is sending out a very strong signal that it has not been taken in by the wiles of the JI, and will stand united with all other Singaporeans to fight this common threat to national peace, security and interest. The community is showing that it will always be vigilant and will never allow itself to be made use of by terrorism. Such signals are important because it indicates that Singaporeans, regardless of race and religion, are rational, practical and united. In other words, it shows to the world that it is safe to invest and do business in Singapore, and to employ Singaporeans. A safe, united and prosperous Singapore is our best rebuff to terrorism.

And as our Muslim countrymen take action to cut out this cancer, I call on all non-Muslim Singaporeans to give them our fullest support. They are undertaking a critical and onerous task not only for the sake of the Muslim community, but for the benefit of every Singaporean.

Let us stay united, encourage one another, work shoulder-to-shoulder with one another and with the Government, and rid our land of this threat of terrorism.

Sir, I support the motion. 4.30 pm

Mr Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani (Hong Kah): Sir, some Singaporeans question why this JI issue is resurrected. They feel that a constant reminder of the issue is bad for the morale of the Muslim community and would thwart inter-religious harmony.

Sir, the response to this is found in limb (a) of today's motion - that the terrorist threat is real and serious. When we first had the arrests in December 2001 and August 2002, the focus was on neutralising the JI itself. The extent to which the JI could impact our peace was not immediately known. We needed to know more about the JI's history, ideology, resources and network. The Government's findings indicate the seriousness of the terrorist threat. A debate allows all our people to be more aware of the nature of the threat. It also enables the Government to have the benefit of public opinion on how to deal with it.

I understand, Sir, that many Singaporeans would rather just move on and leave this issue behind. However, the terrorism issue is bound to rear its head again in future as much of it is beyond our control. It is better for us to face the issue squarely, rather than pretend it does not exist.

Sir, I fully support the three-prong approach enunciated in the White Paper. This approach reflects our acknowledgement that the terrorism threat cannot be managed as a security issue simpliciter. The multi-faceted nature of the threat calls for an equally comprehensive response. Sir, the security aspect of the matter cannot be over-emphasised but I would like just to discuss the second and third limbs of the above approach.

The White Paper suggests that the Muslim community develop a comprehensive self-regulatory system to monitor religious education. Some concerns were raised by members of the public in this regard. Some people question, Sir, whether the community would be up to its task. This question springs from two assumptions. One, that the Muslim community may not have the resources; and two, that the Muslim community may not be firm enough to deal with errant followers for fear of antagonising the greater Muslim community in Singapore and other parts of the world.

As regards resources, it is not the duty of the Muslim community to deal with the whole terrorism threat. Self-monitoring is only one of three pieces in the full picture. Seen in that perspective, the resources required of the community is not so formidable.

I am convinced, Sir, that the Muslim community would be resolute in its task. Since the first arrests, members of the community had declared openly their rejection of the JI and terrorism. The most significant, perhaps, was the stand made by 127 Muslim organisations, who unequivocally rejected the JI and terrorism a few months ago. The Muslim community finds it in their interest to safeguard itself against elements similar to the JI, cuckoo birds included. If it has to do with stricter self-monitoring, it would do so with genuine vigour. Further, Sir, the Muslim community has received the moral support of the other communities to act firmly.

Recently, the committee to look into a proposed Religious Harmony Code met leaders from various religious groups, as mentioned by my colleague, Dr Ong, just now. Generally, all groups agree that there is a need to ensure that religious enthusiasm does not get out of hand and grow into bigotry or extremism. This concern is shared by all religious groups and not just by the Muslims. As such, the efforts by the Muslim community would be complemented by similar efforts made by other religious groups.

Sir, pursuant to this White Paper, the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs had announced the prime role of MUIS, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, to carry out the self-monitoring effort. Some people have raised the concern whether MUIS has the capability to carry out the self-monitoring. The issue here is whether MUIS has the credibility to ensure compliance. A letter published on 14th January 2003 in the Forum page of the Straits Times stated "MUIS already faces a credibility problem". The writer there stated that this was noted in an earlier article by Mr Mafoot Simon in the Straits Times on 12th January. It was said that since not all madrasahs follow the MUIS curriculum, it shows that MUIS lacks credibility.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no institution can claim to have complete adherence from all its constituents. The real issue here is whether it has enough credibility to carry out its task effectively.

Section 3(2) of the Administration of Muslim Law Act provides, among others, that it shall be the function and duty of MUIS to advise the President of Singapore in matters relating to the Muslim religion in Singapore; to administer matters relating to the Muslim religion and Muslims in Singapore; and to administer all mosques and Muslim religious schools in Singapore.

Sir, MUIS has the legitimacy and authority in law to perform the duty to self-monitor religious teachings. No other organisation has an equal status. The appointment to the MUIS Council is through a careful process as stipulated in section 7 of the Act. Efforts are also made to ensure wide representation of the Muslim public. MUIS Councils over the years usually comprise respected community leaders and organisation leaders.

Further, Sir, MUIS has over time grown in terms of reputation and sophistication. It handles mosque development, manage wakaf properties, deals with Haj matters, administers halal certification, overseas zakat or tithe collection and distribution, among others. Problems that arise in relation to madrasah curriculum should not, in one go, strip MUIS of all its credibility. We have to be fair in our judgement. The madrasah issue can be dealt with separately.

Notwithstanding that, MUIS had announced that it would form an Asatizah Group - asatizah is the plural of ustaz or religious teachers - including religious teachers outside MUIS, to discuss contemporary issues facing Islam and to help the self-monitoring process. This announcement was published in the Berita Harian on 16th January 2003.

In this respect, Sir, I refer to a statement made by Pergas, referred to by my colleague, Mayor Othman, just now, which was published also in the Berita Harian of 16th January. The statement was in the Malay language. In the statement, Pergas reiterates its commitment to maintain peace in our multi-religious country. It states that monitoring religious education is a concern of Pergas and MUIS. If further added at paragraph 17, "our efforts - "our" meaning Pergas' efforts - to strengthen cooperation with MUIS shall continue."

Sir, the Muslim community, either by itself, or through MUIS, Pergas or other organisations, shows the resolve and resources to carry out this delicate task of self-monitoring.

There is yet another concern, in spite of numerous assurances to the contrary, whether the religion of Islam itself is the cause of the problem. This worry was given prominent airing recently in the Straits Times dated 15th January in a commentary by Ms Chua Lee Hoong. Some points raised were:

1. The word "Islam" does not mean peace, but total submission to God in order to obtain security, as held by philosopher Roger Scruton;

2. Ayatollah Khomeini said in 1984 that war was a blessing to the world, and men are commanded to wage war and to kill, and such perverse logic continues to inspire young Muslims;

3. There is a danger of the periphery moving into the centre - so one Yazid Sufaat, who was supposed to be an engineer upon receiving a Malaysian Government scholarship, instead returned as one who was involved in both September 11 and the Bali bombing.

4. The Islamic ideological framework, "taken to its logical conclusion denies any official compact with the state and regards secular authority by definition, as being without legitimacy."

Sir, these are extremely serious charges. My brief response is as follows:

According to Drs Imam Munawwir, "Islam" means both peace and submission. According to Dr Quraish Shihad, he commented that by knowing the meaning of the word "Islam" a person would know that it is a religion of peace. World-renowned scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his commentary on the Quran elaborated on the six aspects of "peace" and stated that these are shades of "Islam".

Second point, on killing - the statement made by Ayatollah Khomeini - there are verses in the Quran that say there is no compulsion in religion and the Prophet is reported to have said, "He who is not merciful to others will not be treated mercifully", and these values continue to be taught in our hundreds of religious classes.

As regards Yazid Sufaat, I say, Sir, that thousands of graduates proceed on to be of service to their professions, employers or governments. Malaysia, where Yazid stays, may have its own peculiar context in relation to radicalism; but in Singapore the radicals remain in the periphery. For instance, we noted from the White Paper that the JI believes that those who reject their campaign are infidels. This is not the Islam understood by most Singapore Muslims. Such ideas remain in the periphery.

As regards (4), about the Islamic ideological framework, I beg to disagree. For instance, in the Treaty of Hudaibiya, which was signed by the Prophet on behalf of the Muslims in Medina and the Meccan Quraish, contained several terms, more of which were not favourable to the Muslims, but necessary in order to secure peace. The Prophet ensured that the Muslims honoured its terms.

Events such as this and many others form the corpus of material from which Islamic values and laws are extracted. They show that it is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to have compacts, agreements, with non-Muslims, be they individuals, groups or states. Once made, these agreements are to be honoured even if it is to the detriment of the Muslim party.

Sir, the quotes from Scruton or Ayatollah Khomeini do not reflect the kind of Islam we have in Singapore. But we cannot deny that there are different interpretations of Islam, as there are of any religion. It is not for us to determine which is the true version. The crucial question for us is what is the stand of the Muslim Singaporeans on such issues. It is incumbent on the Muslim community to clarify its position. It is also in the interest of all of us, all communities, to appreciate the position of the Muslim community and act on them wisely

The Muslims in Singapore, Sir, had come out clearly against JI and terrorism. What about some of the other issues raised by Ms Chua Lee Hoong? The Muslims will continue to clarify them. They have been grappling with issues pertaining to Islam since the community itself existed. In the late 19th century, for instance, Munsyi Abdullah wrote about the issue of education to Muslims and pondered why Muslims were weak in that aspect. That issue is still relevant today. In some technical cases, issues such as whether the first day of Ramadan ought to be determined by sight or by calculations, were gradually resolved. But not all issues are straightforward. Some issues get more complex as the world progresses. Some new issues are born with the passage of time. The emergence of radicalism, extremism and terrorism, as they coincide with religious revival, is a major issue that confronts the Muslims today. In this regard, the Muslims in Singapore realise that it has to do some serious introspection.

Sir, in Berita Harian of 16th January, the Mufti's Office issued a statement on Religious Guidance. It stated among others:

1. that Muslims have to objectively evaluate its role in missionary work and religious education;

(2) missionaries must be keenly aware of current thoughts in our society;

3. the approach used to interact with society has to be

reviewed;

(4) when dealing with contemporary issues, missionaries and teachers should use an approach that is open and comprehensive; and

(5) Muslims have to appreciate the universal values in Islam which is based on pristine faith, moral virtues and dynamic laws.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the above reflects the kind of critical self-analysis that underscores the community's present and future efforts. It is not one that is totally inward-looking, but one which also emphasises active participation in the larger society. Let us give the Muslim community some space to formulate its position calmly and thoroughly.

Monitoring religious education, Sir, is a delicate task. It is not quite completely a good idea for the religious education of a certain community to be monitored by a group from a different religion or by the Government. Self-regulation with an increased awareness of the issues at hand is, in principle, the best way out. In other words, if anyone is to regulate and monitor the religious education of the Muslim community so as to detect extremist elements, the best people to do so are the Muslims themselves.

Sir, many Singaporeans are keen to have the terrorist threat resolved once and for all. Unfortunately, it is not always so simple. As stated in the White Paper, Singapore cannot eliminate terrorism completely and by itself. In spite of measures to monitor religious classes and enhance security, it is not possible, as stated earlier, to fully insulate ourselves. On the contrary, the flow of ideas and people across borders will increase. It is not advisable for Singapore to cocoon itself from external influences. The more open we become, the more open we are to possible terrorist attacks, ideologically or physically, from within or without.

The White Paper correctly points out that groups like JI can undermine inter-ethnic harmony. If unchecked, inter-ethnic suspicions will breed distrust, hatred and, eventually, enmity. Therefore, steps have to be taken to further strengthen inter-ethnic cohesion. The establishment of the IRCC and the drafting of a Religious Harmony Code are two concrete steps mentioned in the White Paper.

Bearing in mind the nature of terrorism and extremism, we must continuously promote social cohesion. Social cohesion is not a one-off exercise. It has to be consciously kept alive and current. Some people feel that enhancing inter-religious harmony like self-regulation means further restraints on religion. The President of Pergas alluded to this in his statement which was published in the Berita Harian on 16th January.

Sir, the reality is that our society has become more assertive. We want more political space and more freedom of expression. Religious groups too are becoming more aggressive in their missionary work. At the same time, our island has become more densely populated and more cosmopolitan. There is much greater interface among peoples of various ethnic and religious persuasions now than ever before. These trends are likely to continue. In such a scenario, heightening religious differences is bound to occur unless the different religious groups have developed among themselves that degree of mutual confidence which allows them to air their different positions without undermining the common peace. So, instead of curbing religious expression, inter-religious harmony is meant to facilitate greater freedom of religious expression. It is in the interest of all religious groups to enhance inter-religious confidence. The majority of Singaporeans understand this. Singaporeans also understand that there can be little meaningful community or religious life if there is no collective peace in the first place. Again, in the Berita Harian of 16th January, the Deputy Mufti was reported to have said that the Asatizah group which MUIS intends to set up shall, among others, discuss matters to enable the Muslim community to enhance national integration.

In conclusion, Sir, I state that the terrorism threat is real. It has serious repercussions. It cannot be cured with a single operation. Thus, acknowledging it the way as we do now requires much courage and open heartedness. Handling it is a long drawn affair that demands patience, sensitivity and diligence, and we must do it together.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

Like Mr Chiam before me, I would like to state our party's position on this matter. We share the nation's concern on the threat to our security posed by the terrorist groups like the Jemaah Islamiyah. We recognise this as a very serious threat to our social and economic well being, and support the Government's efforts to contain them. In this respect, may I take the opportunity to applaud the ISD on a job well done. For once, I am beginning to feel a bit more confident about the ISD - that is not used as a political tool.

I am happy to see that the ISA is used in its proper intent, arresting those who are out to harm the security and stability of our beloved country, and those who are bent on using violence as a means to achieve their ideological objectives. We recognise that, as long as we take the constitutional approach to challenge the PAP Government, there should be no fear of such arrests.

I also want to take this opportunity to express my support for the publication of this detailed and almost-comprehensive White Paper. In future, the Government should make it a practice to issue a White Paper following every major arrest using the ISA. My only regret is that, when reading through the Report, I find missing were copies of the Detention Orders issued by the Home Affairs Minister. They should be included in the White Paper to convince the more skeptical people around, the reasons for these arrests.

The arrests were of a very small group of extremist and malevolent radicals. Although some were psychologically pressured into participation, they are not representative or symptomatic of the Muslim community at large. Thus, it is wise of us to differentiate this JI group - with its extremist ideology, willing to espouse violence to achieve their desired ends - from the friendly and peace-loving Muslim community that we have come to know and regard. It is unfortunate that such threats are coming from deviant groups claiming to act in the name of religion.

We must also acknowledge the considerable contributions made by the mainstream Muslim community towards nation building and the sacrifices that they have made - living as a minority in our community.

With many Muslim religious and community leaders coming out to denounce the JI and pledge allegiance to Singapore, the non-Muslim community cannot, but be assured that the JI is an extreme group - rejected by their peers at large, and that Islam itself it not the cause of these problems. It is the extreme radicals behind this group.

Every Singaporean - whether Muslim or non-Muslim, whether pro-Government or pro-Opposition - must come together in this to support the Government and its agencies in keeping peace, law and order. In return, the Government should start paying more attention to the wishes and concerns of the various communities and not dismiss their concerns as slight.

To quote Pergas in their press release, "we (Pergas) are worried that side issues, important to a particular group because of their religion, are not receiving due attention." In particular, the Government should stop questioning the loyalty of the Malays in Singapore. It should move beyond race and help all citizens to focus and build on the Singaporean identity. With a strong Singapore identity, there is less likelihood of our citizens being hijacked to cause harm to our society - by people, groups or governments with a hidden agenda.

On another note, I would like to express three concerns that I have learnt from the White Paper. First, page 26 of the Paper states that the first specific lead came from a concerned Singaporean after the September 11 attacks, after which the investigation and operation against the JI started.

Had that particular Singaporean been less discerning, less wise or less proactive, the Government, the ISD and all Singaporeans would probably have been none the wiser until after an actual attack had materialised at the Yishun MRT station. On that note, that Singaporean should be rewarded for providing that vital information.

However, other than relying on concerned citizens to provide the leads, or information exchanges between the other security agencies, can the Minister assure us that there are other means in place to track the plans and happenings of these known and other unidentified terrorist groups. And that such means are not used as a tool by "big brother" to watch its peace-loving citizens.

Second, Singapore is a very small and vulnerable city surrounded by water. The Government should focus more resources in making sure that external elements are not able to create havoc in Singapore by staging an attack from countries nearby. As we stand here condemning the terrorists, what assurance is there from the Minister that there is no plane, hijacked from airports nearby and flown towards this Parliament House?

Third, I urge the Government not to jump to any hasty conclusions if our installations overseas are under attack or destroyed, no matter the current state of our relationship. There could be malicious elements out to sour our ties with our neighbours and create unrest. As Minister Wong said earlier and quoted from page 11 of the paper, which states that "Hambali's plan was to attack key Singapore installations and to represent them as acts of aggression by the Malaysian government." We must not fall into the trap of the terrorists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to touch on the recommendations put forth by the paper. The three broad recommendations are sensible and practical approach to minimise the problems of terrorism associated with religion. It should be supported and endorsed. However, it is not enough to will this problem away and there is more the Government can and should do to help.

First, the Government should learn to listen to the wishes and aspirations of the people. Stop pretending to listen when policy decisions are already made and justified. It is time for the Government to drop the "We know better than you" kind of attitude. Such Government and civil service attitude results in frustrations and resentments, and does not help to build a more cohesive society.

Second, the Government should encourage greater transparency in its discourse. Keeping the lid on public discussion of any issues serves only to perpetuate a socially and politically immature populace. What fear is there in finding a can of worms if the Government has been fair and vigilant in performing its duties?

Third, I am very happy that this whole episode is brought into spotlight by the issuance of the White Paper and this thorough debate in this House. We have a very fragile society, bound together, not by acceptance, but by tolerance. Singaporeans tolerate each other not because they want to, but because they need to, and are required by the Government.

They cannot want to, because they are not communicating and not understanding each other well enough. Other than through the newly set up IRCC, there is minimal discussion at the inter-racial or inter-religious levels. The Government should not be afraid that such discussions will lead to heightened tensions or racial disharmony, because it would not. If we dare not discuss tough issues, we will be none the poorer as a society.

If there are no discussions, no opportunity to speak up, heard and be heard, and not being able to raise one's concerns to public consciousness, how can Singaporeans learn of each other's aspirations and support each other to build a more cohesive society.

The answer towards greater social cohesion is not to segregate the different communities, but to get them to integrate more closely and frequently. I hope this episode is the beginning of more dialogues, more discussions and more interactions to come between the various communities at the constituency level.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair]

5.00 pm

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Fourth, the Government should practise what it preaches. If it truly believes in the freedom of religion, it should seriously consider allowing the practice of some religious obligations in schools and the civil service. This is especially relevant as our society matures, and greater diversity and non-uniformity results. The Government must encourage and help to build unity in the midst of diversity and make it one of our core strengths of our society.

As a responsible Opposition, we do not want to be seen politicising national and internal security issues. What is needed is to instill trust in one and all, at a time that is most needed for nation building and social cohesion. We would also urge the Government not to exploit the current situation to its own advantage, but to move on to tackle the equally important problem of rising unemployment. We trust that the Government may handle this economic problem with the same zeal and efficiency, because a discontented populace may also disrupt peace and security within the country.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the end of the Cold War and the expansion of global capitalism, the advancement in technology and the emergence of a world-wide free market, the world ushers in the age of globalisation. Singapore, like most of the world, looks forward to a peaceful 21st century with economic prosperity. The Asian financial crisis in 1997 provided the first wake-up call, and its repercussions are still deeply felt.

On 11th September 2001, the world witnessed the return of an intractable conflict in the form of terrorism disguised in the name of Islam. Tragic as the New York attacks were, they seemed remote until the arrests of members of Jemaah Islamiyah in December of that year, and in August 2002. We did not realise that we could be the victims of terrorism as well. With evidence disclosed after the arrests and the Bali bombings in October 2002, we have to accept that terrorism is now a real and serious threat to us.

The Workers' Party has considered these developments in the context of national and regional security and the well-being of our people. The Party has noted the change in the global political environment and the shift in geo-political landscape. We are of the view that Singapore, being small and situated in a sensitive geographical arena, is vulnerable. Terrorism poses a great challenge to our future. Although the Workers' Party disagrees with the PAP Government in many areas, including the ISA, we feel it is time that the nation should be united to face the challenge of terrorism. The Workers' Party supports the Government's action in the arrest of the JI members and the recommendations put forth in the White Paper. Although the Government has responded with sensible recommendations in the White Paper, the problem of terrorism disguised in the name of Islam involves deep emotions, which the recommendations may not be able to fully address. The Workers' Party is concerned about the predicament facing some sections of the Muslim community, as a result of the JI arrests and the economic downturn.

First of all, we are aware that some Muslims feel that the Muslim community in Singapore is now put in the spotlight and Islam is portrayed in a bad light by the media. It is obvious that terrorism in the name of Islam cannot be seen as Islam itself. If the plan to attack Yishun MRT station was successful, the victims could be Muslims as well. We are sure that the majority of Singaporeans are able to distinguish between terrorism and Islam. However, there are bound to be a small number of people who will over-react and embarrass our fellow Muslims, thereby damaging the trust between the communities.

We strongly urge the various ethnic communities, the public, the employers and the media, and even the Government itself, to be sensitive to the feelings of our Muslim community and exercise restraint in putting the community under the spotlight, when there is a need to go public.

The White Paper describes the JI as a clandestine organisation in its method of recruitment and which features Islam in a misguided way to achieve the organisation's ulterior motives. However, we also need to examine and identify where there are factors in our political, social and economic setting which could be capitalised on in the recruitment of terrorists in Singapore. For example, we are aware that there are Muslims who feel that they are being discriminated against by employers in the current economic situation. There are some who feel that they are suppressed in the practice of their religion. Some feel they are marginalised in our society. Whether these concerns are perceived or real, we believe that this can only be resolved through continuous dialogue within the Muslim community across different ethnic and religious groups and between the community and the Government. The dialogue should reach out to the wider community to be able to forge consensus. The Government has to be open and ensure that it grasps the real feeling of the majority of the Muslim community and reflects its sensitivity in the formulation of its policies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore, being an open economy, is facing the challenge of economic restructuring to better cope with different economic landscape, characterised by intense competition and a new economy. Singaporeans, being subject to this fast changing, unpredictable and pressurising environment, are increasingly looking to religion as their anchor. Singapore is a multi-racial society and open global city. The communities here are easily subject to events happening in the region and the world. This will bring strain to our social and religious harmony from time to time. This is the challenge faced by all ethnic and religious groups in Singapore, as we cannot isolate ourselves from the outside world. We have no other alternative but to take these challenges positively, bearing in mind our common destiny as Singaporeans. We should engage in continuous dialogue and deliberation to sort out our differences and reach consensus. We should emerge from such threats and potential conflicts as a stronger nation. And all communities can then enjoy the fruits of our development and social harmony.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to share my views on this subject.

Sir, 38 years ago, to be precise on 10th March 1965, a bomb went off in MacDonald House in Orchard Road killing three persons and injuring 37 others. This was during the height of the Indonesian Confrontation. It was the work of infiltrators sent by the Sukarno regime, and it was the first time an act of terrorism of such a scale took place in Singapore. The two Indonesian marines who masterminded the bombing were caught, convicted and hanged.

Sir, at that time, I was a young boy, but that incident and two racial riots the year before left lasting impressions in my mind. And my memory was jolted again when news first broke out that the Government had arrested 15 persons in December 2001 for planning attacks on several targets in Singapore. If these attacks had been pulled off, the damage to innocent lives and property would have been of far greater magnitude than that one single act that took place 38 years ago, as we have found out from the many revelations that came in the ensuing months as well as from the White Paper. But of even greater consequence to us would have been the damage to ethnic relations in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, because those who were thwarted in their mission were Muslims, connected directly to Al Qaeda, and were prepared to carry out their mindless acts in the name of Islam. The Jemaah Islamiyah, if it had succeeded, would have placed Muslim Singaporeans under a glaring but uncomfortable and unenviable spotlight.

Sir, immediately after the first arrests were made, the Government made it clear that this was not a focus on the Muslim community but on the JI, that it was not a communal threat but one concerning national security affecting all Singaporeans, underscores the point that the fabric of racial and religious harmony that we enjoy in Singapore can be easily torn apart if unfounded suspicions are allowed to affect the way non-Muslims behave towards Muslims in Singapore. For decades, we have had the foresight to build a multi-racial and multi-religious society while giving recognition to the unique flavour of each ethnic group and the values and heritage of each religious belief. It would be benign of me to simply put it that 37 years of nation building would have been in vain if we have not fortified our resolve to live as one nation, one people, regardless of race, language and religion, come what may. But the reality is that the harmony we now enjoy is fragile enough to be unzipped right down the middle, if ignited by an event such as the one that might have happened if the JI had its way.

Hence, the White Paper serves as a wake-up call. Its recommendations require us to be on the defensive as well as to be proactive in the fight against terrorism. We have enhanced our intelligence and tightened security measures. We have passed laws to criminalise terrorist funding, and we have joined the global effort through steps, such as the signing of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

But, Sir, what is equally important is the proactive role of each citizen to strengthen social cohesion and racial harmony. Such a clarion call to rally everyone is, of course, easy to make, and I have found myself grappling with the thought that if we do encounter a situation where a dastardly attack takes place, will we find ourselves asking: have we done enough - and have we done it fast enough - to maintain the integrity of the relations between our various peoples?

To come back to the reality of the present, we know we have time, hopefully, to scrutinise what we must do. We have the IRCCs, and we are shaping the Code on Religious Harmony, and I think these are all positive moves. But we must ask ourselves, in all frankness, whether it is enough just to make symbolic visits to temples and mosques. While we take heart that good sense does prevail at leadership levels, I find myself, at times, fearful that if a group of evil and desperate persons succeed just once in breaking through our meticulous security cordon and explode their devices and cause untold damage, what would be the reaction of our own heartlanders? What would be the effect on the moderation and peace that we now enjoy?

We rightfully ask that there be more common space for the different races and that the social space where all Singaporeans can interact be expanded. The Prime Minister himself has pointed out that the downside to Muslims feeling more at ease with social activities at mosques than anywhere else is that Muslims will feel less and less of a need to mingle with other races. This is a poignant truth that the Muslim community has to ponder.

But while we ask our Muslim friends to move closer to mainstream Singapore, at the same time, we who are the majority, must not, unwittingly or otherwise, become more vigilant towards them because of the militant ideology of the few in their midst. In as much as we want to know how the Muslim community reacts and we have asked them to speak out against terrorism, the rest of us must also not overreact, because at the end of the day, if the Muslim community feels alienated, the JI would have won the psychological battle. I am therefore heartened to note that the Government recognises that, in its efforts to identify and neutralise radical Islamic religious leaders and foreign terrorist operatives, it must not disrupt the legitimate and peaceful activities of the local Muslim community.

Sir, this is not a fight over whose political ideology is superior. This is about a war against fanaticism, against those who want their militant brand of a religion to prevail. How else can you make of their declared position that those who defect from their cause, or who do not support their violent ways are labelled infidels? What else can you make of an organisation that thinks nothing of killing thousands, including those of their own faith?

Is it therefore not significant to us that the plan to bomb Yishun MRT Station was foiled because of a call made by a Muslim Singaporean to the ISD? Whoever it was must have been aware that what is at stake is not a fight between Muslims and non-Muslims, but one of a cult-like organisation bent on inflicting senseless attrition versus the rest of humanity.

This White Paper has sent the message that Singapore is no pushover in this fight. We will muster all our resources and work closely with every peace loving nation in the world. Encountering the terrorist threat needs a global effort and it cannot be done spasmodically. If Southeast Asia is the next battleground in the fight against terrorism, then regional cooperation becomes vital in our efforts to take on an organisation that has cast its tentacles across national boundaries. It took the bombings in Bali for the Indonesian government to move from self-denial to the fact that they already have the enemy within. The rest of the world watches us. Investors will not make that fine distinction between Singapore and other Southeast Asian countries, if an attack takes place anywhere in the region. When the bombs in Bali went off, some countries issued travel advisories on several Southeast Asian countries, Singapore included.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, when our neighbours up north, in their own wisdom, utter the "W" word in their dispute with us over water and Pedra Branca, and in the process send their own people into a frenzy, I think it is timely for us also to remind them that what we have at hand is a real war against an enemy, playing a game far more deadly than the hysteria we have to bear with from them occasionally.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the motion which I rise in support of.

Sir, indeed the battle against terrorism and JI in particular, is not one that many, including our Muslim compatriots here and in the region, will deny. The recurring bombings, calculated by these extremist elements to bring fear and terror to our civilised world, have once again brought this region into a state of war; albeit a war of a different sort. We are, today, faced with one of the toughest challenges yet since the days when we had to fight against the Communist insurgency.

Like the fight against the Communists, the war on terror cannot be fought against known elements alone. For every Hambali or Bashir that we put into prison, there will be hundreds or even thousands of other similarly minded extremists who will be willing to rise in their place. Let us not under-estimate the extremity of hatred or feelings that these radicals have against others and its effect on their actions. What we have here is a very potent mix of religious and political convictions that so fill these terrorists that death, the very ultimate sacrifice of all, no longer serves as a sobering influence on conduct. In fact, for them, it is a glory to die. And, obviously, neither will it make a difference that innocent civilians, and we are talking here of children, and of loving fathers and mothers who feed these children, suffer from their harmful and despicable actions.

Sir, perhaps the challenge we are faced with now is even greater than the challenge we faced from the Communist terrorists. Communism is a political ideology. We could deal with it in surgical fashion. We could ban Communism. We could isolate Communist guerillas by confining people in new villages. And we taught a whole generation of Singaporeans to believe that Communism is bad and is the very antithesis of freedom and wealth. Indeed, Communism has proven to be a bankrupt ideology. However, in the current fight against terrorism, we are faced with a very different enemy - people who practise terrorism in the name of religion. Sir, they are like cancers in our body that cannot be gotten rid of. We can only treat it. It may go into remission and one day, it may just rear its ugly head again.

The problem here is the political and religious mix of Islam. Radical Islam has its roots in the Middle East conflict. The creation of the state of Israel in the post-war period, and the subsequent flood of predominantly Muslim Palestinian refugees into Jordan and elsewhere has been an underlying source of conflict and tension in the Middle East. That the Americans should be seen to cast their lot with the Israelis in this conflict throughout does not help with the perception that the Palestinians have been given an unfair deck of cards. Throughout this period, the Islamic revolution in Iran, together with the successful overthrow of the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan by the Talebans, served to provide new inspiration for the growth of fundamentalism in Islam. This was, in no small part, helped by the growing influence of Wahabism, which is another form of fundamentalist Islam.

The over-arching reach of fundamentalist Islam worldwide cannot be ignored. In Southeast Asia, the force of Islam in the political realm cannot be ignored. For many states, particularly Malaysia and Indonesia, no serious political contender can hope to gain national prominence without paying close attention to the Muslim ground. In Malaysia, PAS, as an Islamic-based political party, has been gaining much political grounds in recent elections; and this despite their open espousal of eventually transforming Malaysia into an Islamic state based on the Syariah laws. Similarly, in Indonesia, Islamic-based political organisations, such as the NU, can often turn the political tide in an electoral contest. The influence of these organisations in Indonesia has grown quite dramatically in recent years and is a force to be reckoned with.

Even in Singapore, the force of Islamic fundamentalism has not avoided us. That we see some Muslims in Singapore pushing their bounds with the State on their dress code in schools is but a variant of the mix between religion and politics. It is no accident that, in the last 20 years at least, we see more and more Muslims becoming more conservative in the doctrine and the practice of their faith. I know of many colleagues in my office who, over the years, have insisted on taking on the strict Islamic code of dressing. We also note that there is an increasing number of Muslim parents who are choosing to send their children to the madrasahs.

Sir, in case I am misunderstood, I am not against any form of fundamentalism or conservatism in religious practice. In fact, I support it as the purist approach helps to keep a perspective on the original founding principles of the faith. What I am against is the insistence on one's right to practise and observe his beliefs even if it means the others may feel that their personal or common public spaces may be encroached or imposed upon. Additionally, I am against the practice of a faith in a manner that passes judgment on all others that they are infidels and are destined for the eternal hell.

It is for this reason and for the sake of our social cohesion that we issue a call to our Muslim compatriots to be moderate in their faith. Sir, whilst nobody would deny the unassailable logic of the need to be moderate, there are several issues associated with the call that should perhaps be discussed further.

First, the battle against terrorism is not confined simply to just arresting a few key suspects and dismantling the JI network. It goes beyond that. As with our battle against Communism, it is really about the battle for the hearts and minds of the people. A fertile ground for the spread of extremist ideas would always exist where social conditions permit. Communism thrives and spreads against a backdrop of abject poverty. The need for moderation is a function of the extent to which the affected social class perceives itself as being marginalised and disadvantaged. In other words, the greater the perception and reality that they are not beneficiaries of any progress or trickle of wealth that comes through the system, the greater is the likelihood of those affected, rejecting the legitimacy of the established regime and its leadership, and the need for moderation in their conduct. The bombings in the Philippines and Indonesia grew as much out of conditions of social desperation as it did of political and religious convictions. Let me put it another way. If the Philippines and Indonesia were in the same economic league as Australia and Japan, would the same extent of bombing incidents have taken place?

In Singapore, we cannot say that our Muslim compatriots are a deprived group. However, the same cannot be said at the same time that there are no disparities in the socio-economic conditions among the Malay Muslims that there is no reason for us to be concerned. Over the years, we recognise that the social and political stability in Singapore can only come about if all ethnic groups moved together in reaping from the benefits of the progress in this country. Indeed, one underlying objective for establishing Mendaki is to ensure that the Malay Muslims in Singapore are not left behind as the country prospers. After more than 35 years of independence, one can confidently say that the gaps between the Malay Muslims and the other ethnic groups are closing. However, more can be done. There is still the perception that we are still some way off in all ethnic groups being on par on the economic terms.

Sir, unfortunately, the disparity among the various ethnic groups tends to sharpen in focus in times when the economy moves into prolonged recession as our economy seems to be heading. The next few years will prove to be equally challenging as we struggle to recover from our present round of sluggish economic performance. Until then, there will be many who will be unemployed. Such conditions tend to reinforce the "them and us" mentality. If we are not careful, this may serve to deepen the fault lines in our society. Certainly, it does not help that some irresponsible parents could not have chosen a worse time to bring up the tudung issue. When the economic tide is down, the jetsam and the flotsam suddenly become all the more obvious for all to see. Such conditions provide the fodder with which to fuel the fire of extremist exploitation. If the people, by and large, are led to believe that their present plight is due not so much to structural economic problems but to the result of unfair Government policy, we have a problem on hand that the arrest of a few key trouble-makers is not going to resolve.

This brings me to my second point. When we speak of moderate Islam, one question which arises is: who defines what is moderate Islam? And will the people, on whose shoulders lie the responsibility of defining moderate Islam, enjoy the legitimacy of authority within the target audience, or are they seen as just an extension of the regime that does not enjoy their trust and confidence?

The Muslims in Singapore, as indeed Muslims all over the world, are subject to competing influences and doctrines. Just the other day, we read in the papers of how a fiery cleric was asked to leave London because of the inflammatory content of his sermon. Charismatic clerics, like this one, can pose a danger to society simply from their ability to influence masses through the power of their oratorical skills. If you have heard one of these fiery clerics preach, you would have known how persuasive and influential these preachers can be.

Likewise, in Singapore, MUIS is concerned about the type of preachers who get invited to address the local congregation. We, too, recognise how much damage a radical and persuasive cleric can do to our social fabric. In the Internet age, we live in a borderless world. No amount of restriction and restraint is going to prevent radical Islam from spreading among and influencing the local people. Ultimately, whether the people who preach moderation will prevail will depend on their legitimacy in the eyes of the faithful. To the extent that these moderate leaders command the following and respect of the Muslims, there should not be any problem in holding the radicals at bay. However, the ability of the moderate leaders in a cosmopolitan society in holding the Muslims together will come under increasing pressure as the wave of fundamentalism continues to sweep across the Southeast Asian region.

Muslim leaders in Singapore, whether they are politicians or religious leaders, operate within the constraints of a multi-racial society. It may not be possible for them at all times to impose on the larger society the specific demands of their faith. The issues of wearing the tudung in schools and the restriction of sale of alcohol are but some examples. The perceived inability to advance their specific demands arguably may compromise their moral authority and legitimate standing, in the eyes of the followers, to talk about matters of the faith. If this happens, the message from the moderate leaders to the Muslims to be moderate may not enjoy the same support and standing as one would have hoped for. The feared outcome is that despite the message for moderation, there may well be Muslims who will continue to nurse a silent respect for the Muslim terrorists who are prepared to die for their cause, thus lending a fertile ground for other Muslim teachers to teach otherwise.

Obviously, in this battle, the State cannot be seen to have an active part in defining what moderate Islam is or should be, and neither the religious teachers who are expected to lead the way be seen to be agents of the State.

Thirdly, social cohesion, even in the context of moderate Islam, cannot be strengthened if, as we have seen in recent years, the mosques continue to increasingly serve as a focal point for the Muslims in Singapore. As an MP on the ground, I cannot help but notice that many Muslims are increasingly retreating into the comfort zones of the mosques for their religious and other needs as well. I can only attribute this to the recent resurgence in Islam in Singapore, and this has inspired many to turn to the mosques. This has resulted in low participation rate for the secular communal activities among the Muslims at our grassroots organisations. Just look at the participation rate among the Muslims on the activities organised by community centres in Singapore today. I dare say that, without the benefit of a proper study, the number of Muslims participating in these activities can be improved, and the low number certainly is not welcomed.

This withdrawal, coupled with the recent events, certainly provide much room for unhealthy prejudices and misgivings among Singaporeans. For social cohesion to strengthen, Muslims in Singapore should not be seen to be setting themselves apart from the rest of society. Instead, they should be seen to be actively engaging the wider society in various activities in order to build more bridges so that whatever prejudices the others may have will disappear. Firm friendships and bonds must be engendered that go beyond the market and workplace. Token visits to each other's places of worship as an outer sign of promoting racial harmony should be expanded to include active interaction and exchanges. As loyal Singaporeans, we should make it a point to develop long-lasting and deep friendships with people who are not of the same colour of skin or of the same creed. Only then will we be able to disabuse ourselves and perhaps others of whatever prejudices that may have previously festered in our minds.

Sir, this debate is not only about combating terrorism and the Jemaah Islamiyah in particular. I do not deny that these issues are important. This debate is also about the larger context within which the battle against terrorism is fought. This battle goes beyond the hunt for and the arrest of key JI or even Al-Qaeda suspects. To succeed, we must be mindful that, as in our fight against the Communists, we have to win the hearts and minds of those involved. For our Muslim compatriots, moderation in the practice of their faith must continue to remain the cornerstone of their belief, if we want to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore. For the non-Muslims, nursing unfounded prejudices and engaging in discriminatory practices is a recipe for disaster.

Let us not forget that the flag which represents this country uses the red colour to signify the universal brotherhood of man. It should not matter that we are Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or even free-thinkers. What matters most is that we are Singaporeans dedicated as a people towards building a country that we can all be proud of. The day we forget this principle would be the day when we go down the slippery slope of strife and racial tension. If that happens, Singapore will just be another sad statistic of a dream shattered.

The cost is high, if we do not succeed in this battle. We must therefore strengthen our resolve to do whatever it takes, and to take whatever to do, to vanquish terrorism and all its attendant evil. We have no choice on this.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs.

Sir, I empathise with those who wish that the debate on this issue should not be prolonged, especially so for one who is the 13th speaker of the day! Enough is enough, some might say, both by Muslims and non-Muslims in Singapore. Perhaps, a sentiment felt more by the Muslim Singaporeans.

But for those who believe so, Mr Wong's remarks earlier, I trust, would explain why this White Paper had to be presented to Parliament. Muslim Singaporeans should rest assured that this Paper is not about finding fault with the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are moderate and tolerant. Indeed, these Muslim Singaporeans themselves feel that they are the victims of this small group of misled Singaporeans who tried to hijack Islam.

It bears reiterating that the majority of Muslim Singaporeans believe in living peacefully with others, especially in this plural, multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore. It will reassure the Muslims that this debate is not about finger-pointing Islam as the cause for all the ills brought about by the face of terror today. Yes, Muslims will be quick to point out that there is only one Islam, but they cannot deny that there are many faces of Muslims and many ways how Islam is interpreted or, worse, abused. Even here, there is room for better understanding among Muslims themselves, and also by the non-Muslims. There are many grey areas here, where black-and-white pronouncements might not be the quick answers towards better understanding.

It is a long haul, and requires patience, perseverance and wisdom in handling it. It calls for continued confidence-building. It is not the form that matters. Yes, visits to mosques, temples, churches and clan associations must continue, dialogues on how to handle differences made a staple programme for grassroots organisations, but the underlying foundation to better understanding should be greater tolerance and acceptance in diversity. Race and religious relations should be inclusive rather than exclusive. Most importantly, a total rejection of terrorism, no matter what their causes.

The White Paper in front of us for debate has called this threat of JI-types and of terrorism as a national one. Do enough Singaporeans know what that means? Do Singaporeans really know how serious the threat is? Judging from the reaction of some of whom I have met, I am not sure they do. For sure, not many Singaporeans have read the White Paper. We hope many more will follow the Parliamentary debate on the White Paper, as it is critical that as many Singaporeans as possible understand what holds.

Singaporeans better believe that this threat is real. JI is real, and the threat of terrorism, whatever the cause, is real. Any sense of denial, as still held by some, will not help. However, this needs to be addressed, perhaps through more dialogues, even at grassroots level, as some generally responsible grassroots leaders do seem to still harbour such feelings of scepticism.

At a recent Feedback Unit dialogue which I chaired, for example, there are still those who are sceptical about the findings, even to the point of doubting the integrity of the ISD. "Was force used?", they asked. "Why not charge them in open court, if there are already enough evidence?", they asked. I hope the booklet "Why the ISA", recently issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, will help to explain and convince more why Singapore has to tackle the issue this way.

For those not convinced, even the question of why no public confession was yet raised, despite the explanation given why such an approach was stopped following the experience of earlier ISA arrests. All these add to the notion how complex the issue is and why we need to continue to educate and reach out to more Singaporeans to make them understand how national this issue is and why it needs more careful handling.

Muslim Singaporeans who still feel uneasy about them and their religion Islam being in the spotlight yet again, rest assured that it is more of the effort on the part of the Government to throw more light on the JI arrests, the JI members' operations, their psyche, their regional and global connections and their deadly dastardly schemes. For those who openly or secretly empathise with such suicidal terroristic methods of furthering the JI cause, think how you would feel if your own innocent flesh and blood fell victim to such bombings or attacks. If you say it is still all right, then the problem is even more serious.

Some, although having accepted the threat of JI and terrorism, wondered why the Government prolonged the debate. "The sooner we close the matter, the better", fearing that the image of Muslim Singaporeans would be affected, not only locally but all over the world. They question the need to place the White Paper on sale and made available freely.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I feel otherwise, as I agree with the need for the White Paper to be issued and debated. However, I trust the Minister will explain why the price was pegged at a high of $22 each when we would like it to reach more citizens.

I believe there are many Singaporeans who feel, "Oh, no, not another JI report!", or "Why place the Muslims under the spotlight again?" But I feel this White Paper should be made essential reading for as many Singaporeans as possible, if we want to ensure that the challenge of terrorism we face is understood as national. Teachers, community leaders, including religious leaders, need a good understanding of the issue and the role they can play to bring about better social cohesion. However, the White Paper needs to be reduced to simpler language and creative graphic representations to reach as many Singaporeans as possible.

Muslim Singaporeans should feel reassured that the White Paper made it clear that the large majority of Singapore Muslims and Islam were not at fault. It is this small group of misguided JI-type Muslims which Muslim Singaporeans and non-Muslim Singaporeans alike are concerned about.

It is worth reiterating that this is not a question of Muslims and Islam yet again under the spotlight. Thanks to ISD, also the regional security cooperation with the relevant authorities in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and many other international players, Singapore was able to nip the problem in the bud. The efficacy and good intentions of the ISD need not be doubted. Networks of terrorist destruction work in strange and most irresponsible ways. They care not lives of innocents, and rationalise such dastardly acts even with religious conveniences and mis-justifications.

It is also noteworthy that the original tip-off that led to the JI arrests came from a Muslim Singaporean, just to emphasise that Muslims and non-Muslims alike will have to fight this battle together.

Yes, the JI is Muslim-connected, so is the Al-Qaeda, but Muslim Singaporeans must be bold enough to reject them as their methods bring terror, not solution to the problems faced. The collective rejection of the JI and acts of terrorism by the more than 120 Muslim groups in Singapore bodes well for Singapore and our fight against extremism and terrorism.

Non-Muslim Singaporeans, on their part, should remove any fear of Muslims or Islam in general and instead work hand-in-hand with the Muslim community to rid of this menace.

Talking about ISD, Sir, I remember their professional work standards which Singapore can be proud of. Back in 1973, when the University of Singapore Muslim Society was invited by President Moammar Ghaddafi to attend the International Youth Conference, they knew about it. I had to convince the ISD officers that the University of Singapore Muslim Society representatives, including myself, were moderate Muslims, even though we were going to Libya, and that they have nothing to worry about. We were open and transparent about the matter but, despite that, both the USMS representatives were stopped at the airport on their return and all the publications were confiscated for checking.

I was furious as they had doubted me and my loyalty, I thought, but on hindsight, was happy that they were thorough and professional in their conduct and work. During that two-week stay in Libya, many things happened. Yes, most of those who attended the conference were in search of answers for their troubled situations back home and in the Muslim world. Where was the answer promised by Islam? There were so many double standards and hypocracies felt in international relations. It was true then, and I am sure you will say the same for now. Ghaddafi had proposed Islam as the Third International Theory, where he said that capitalism and Communism had failed, and brought about the Green Book, as his answer to the world's predicaments. Most of the delegates rejected the theory and the conference ended in failure, much to the chagrin of the host.

Delegates then participated in demonstrations, peaceful though, on the streets of Tripoli for the Palestinian cause and some were even approached to serve in the shadow cabinet-in-exile for the Moros of the Philippines. There were lots of sympathies for many causes of the Muslim then world-wide, but that did not make us, in fact, most delegates, see the need to go the JI way or to resort to terrorism.

The serious threat of misconceived "Jihad" or "Holy War", is real, even till today.

Mr M J Akbar, writing in his book, The Shade of Swords, Jihad and the Conflict between Islam and Christianity, concludes that "Defeat (of Osama and Al Qaeda and the Talebans) is only a setback in the holy war. The Jihad goes on". However, that should not alarm us, as it is not new. The power of jihad, for some, pervades the mind and soul of Islam. The mind is where the current battle will be fought, and this is why it will be a very long war.

Muslim Singaporeans should realise that they should not be pawns, nor proxy, to such battles. The lesson from Pakistan is clear.

After a bloodbath separation from India to form its own country of majority Muslims, it is now seen as a hotbed of this battle of the mind. M J Akbar wrote that Pakistan has become a haven of terrorists who have created "a state within a state". He said that no one said this more clearly than President Pervez Musharraf, when in an address to the nation a year ago, asked for an end to the culture of jihad. He told the extremist clergy that they must stop encouraging gullible young men into martyrdom, as he would not want Pakistan to take the responsibility for jihad across the world. He would not allow mosques to be misused and seminaries to become schools for hatred.

In Malaysia too, the ruling government has begun its crackdown on rural religious schools (SARs) that sow hatred against the government by withdrawing funding.

Fortunately, for Singapore, the bad influence was marginal and had been nipped in the bud. Nevertheless, it happened and can happen again. It is therefore the duty of all to ensure such tendencies do not repeat.

MUIS and local Muslim groups and leaders have done well in responding to the call to reject extremist views and acts of terrorism. The Malay MPs have stated unequivocally their position to reject the JI and its extremist agenda. Together with the Malay community, they have pledged to continue to work with other Singaporeans to bring about a more cohesive, multi-racial and multi-religious society. Realising that the fight against terrorism and extremism will be a long-drawn affair, the Malay MPs call on everyone, Malays and non-Malays alike, to stand up and work together to strengthen mutual trust and confidence and move on as a nation.

When I was in Delhi in November, I learned that further bloodshed was avoided when the Muslim organisations came out in force to condemn the violent and terrorist attacks by extremist Muslim groups on the Hindu community in Gujerat.

Similarly, following a denial mode in Indonesia from most Muslim groups, the Bali bomb blast of October 12 jolted them to work alongside the Government to fight terrorism. This, I was told, avoided a very serious backlash between the majority Hindus in Bali and the minority Muslims on the island.

Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have this unique opportunity to work together to remove such unhealthy radicalism among fringe Muslim groups. This is a battle we do not have to, and cannot fight alone. I would like to urge the Government to enhance regional cooperation so as to ensure that no one group can abuse the common borders for any terrorist attacks. There are more that can be done in terms of regional cooperation in this fight against terrorism, and we certainly look forward to our neighbours sharing this sense of urgency.

Sir, on a final note, we must do all we can to find ways to make both our Muslim Singaporeans and non-Muslim Singaporeans to be at ease with each other. Yes, there will be a certain amount of awkwardness, as mentioned by Mr Wong just now, but let that be just a passing wind. Let us look to the IRCC and Harmony Circles to bridge better relations and understanding at the HDB heartland. More Malays/Muslims should use this opportunity to improve the level of participation at the grassroots level. There is now an unprecedented demand for a better understanding about the Malay-Muslim way of life and the Malays/Muslims should not waste this opportunity for better bridging and better understanding.

On a lighter note, Sir, although it is quite late, it would not be long before Mr Rafi of Marine Parade will be comfortable again with his sarong, where and when he chooses to wear, although I personally feel that the sarong is best worn at home.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I read the White Paper on the Jemaah Islamiyah Arrests and The Threat of Terrorism, I was sobered by the realisation that we are in for a long-term battle with terrorism, and that it is a difficult battle.

It is a difficult battle for at least two reasons. First, it is tied up with the shadowy force of radical and militant Islam in the world and in the region. And, second, the outcome of the battle is not totally in our hands.

The JI branch in Singapore is part of a larger JI network with cells in the region, such as in Malaysia and Indonesia. It is part of the same network that has carried out dozens of other deadly bombings in Indonesia and the Philippines in the past few years.

It is a multi-national organisation, operating across borders. This means that the problems cannot be wiped out, no matter how effective our security and intelligence agencies are, because the key operatives are outside the country and beyond our control. It is instructive to note that the Singapore JI branch reported to the Malaysian JI leadership. This means that Singapore will always have to be on guard against its citizens not being recruited by foreign radical Muslim leaders or their extreme interpretations of the faith, and that they are not swayed by their militant causes and visions.

From the White Paper, one can glean that the Singaporeans arrested for their JI activities harbour a strong anti-US sentiment, coupled with a belief that they should wage militant jihad against the oppressors of Muslims in the world, such as against Christians in the Malukus in Indonesia. Indeed, while some of the Singaporeans arrested have had combat experience in Afghanistan, many have had training nearby, in the Malukus and Batam in Indonesia, as well as in the Philippines.

These conflicts in the region not only served to give concrete meaning to the concept of militant jihad, a key element of JI's ideology, but also provided easily accessible places where recruits from Singapore could gain practical combat experience. While the Singaporeans joined in the fight in what may seem to be local disputes in the region, they also believed in the ultimate aim of their struggle - for an Islamic state empire in the region.

Several were even willing to be suicide bombers, if they were instructed to do so by the JI leaders - the ultimate sacrifice.

Sir, against this backdrop, I would like to highlight three points.

First, this is a regional problem which requires regional cooperation and regional political will. And at all levels, not just at the level of intelligence and security agencies, and not just exchanging information and acting on them. Let me explain.

Take one of the plans by Hambali, the JI point-main with Al-Qaeda, who wanted to attack key Singapore installations, and to represent them as acts of aggression by the Malaysian government. According to the White Paper, Hambali's aim was to create a situation in Malaysia and Singapore, which would be conducive to overthrowing the Malaysian government and provoking a revolution that would turn Malaysia into an Islamic state. Hambali wanted to provoke distrust and animosity between a "Muslim" Malaysia and a "Chinese Singapore" and cause ethnic strife in both countries. Hambali's hope, the White Paper added, was that Muslims in both countries would then respond to calls for jihad and turn Malaysia and Singapore into another Ambon.

Now, just reading the newspapers, especially the Malaysian ones, over the last few months or so, would give one the impression that it does not need a Hambali to provoke distrust and animosity between the two countries. It would seem that some politicians and commentators are quite capable of doing that already - whipping up anti-Singapore sentiments over any possible issue, from the ownership of Pedra Branca, to land reclamation and the supply of water.

What is particularly disturbing is that the discourse in Malaysia is not above evoking anti-Muslim images. For instance, the Malaysian Berita Harian published an editorial in December titled "Singapore Behaving Like The Jews In Claiming Batu Putih Island". The Malay-language daily said that Singapore was behaving like the Jews who stole land belonging to the Palestinians. I quote, "So just like Israel that is surrounded by Arab countries, Singapore is like a Jewish state surrounded by Malay states."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, now, we know that Israel and the Palestine issues are explosive issues which provoke deep resentment in most parts of the Muslim world. Such rhetoric to cast Singapore in such light is dangerous. It is dangerous not only because it may give radical Muslims around the world another reason to look at Singapore as a target for militant jihad. It is dangerous also because it can create a tinderbox atmosphere in which the racial and religious cleavages between the two countries can be easily exploited by militant Muslims with just a strike of the match, at the right, or rather, the wrong time.

Such rhetoric is also grossly irresponsible. Singapore is a multi-racial state, with a significant Muslim minority.

Sir, we are not oblivious to the vagaries of the election season in neighbouring countries, but I would urge the politicians from across the Causeway to bear in mind the major challenge facing us together, and that is the threat of terrorism.

While it may seem easy and almost cost-free to score political points at home by whipping up anti-Singapore sentiments, it is a high-risk game, especially given these volatile times.

It is like two next-door neighbours quarrelling about who owns the spot outside the doorway, when there are ruthless murderers lurking along the corridors with bombs that will not only blow up the contested spot outside the door but all that they have built within their homes as well.

We must remember that our fates are intertwined. It is important that the countries in this region work together to present a united front in curbing the influence of extremist groups in this region.

Towards this effort, people-to-people relations between the two countries should be strengthened and greater understanding fostered. Such a civil society project cannot move forward if the poisonous and fractious atmosphere between the two countries remain and is allowed to escalate, stoked by one-sided media reports which demonise Singapore. Once hatred is sowed in the heart of the peoples, it can take on a dynamic of its own and be beyond the control of their political masterminds.

Bilateral disputes, however vexing, should be seen against the bigger strategic picture. We face a common challenge. We share a common destiny, whether we like it or not.

If we are regarded by the international community as a region that is plagued by disputes and instability, and one that breeds Islamic radicals, this would undermine investor confidence and affect our future development as individual countries and as a region. Such an outcome will make it all the harder for leaders in this region to win the support of their people against the more extreme Islamic political groups offering an alternative vision of a spiritual society, withdrawn from the secular modern world.

The growing popularity of Islamic parties around the world, such as in Turkey and Pakistan, in the face of the US-led war on terrorism - a war often painted by Islamic political opportunists as anti-Islam - points to the challenge that this region faces.

Secondly, there is another complication that we in Singapore have to watch out for, and that is the latent anti-American sentiment in some quarters in the region. It can be easily whipped up and exploited by those who want to play to their domestic Muslim gallery. Add to this the tensions created by a possible war on Iraq and the picture for the region looks even more uncertain.

America has become the big issue in the war against terrorism, when the issue should be rooting out the terrorists and halting the rise of militant Islam. The growing anti-Americanism, if not checked, will only make it easier to recruit young men for suicide missions against US and Western targets around the world, including in this region.

In Singapore, we have to make sure our own society knows where its national interests lie and protect it. We may not always agree with the US and, indeed, we have disagreed with the superpower on several occasions in international forums.

International law and the legitimacy of the UN are important to Singapore, especially since it is a small state. But even as we discuss the merits or demerits, or the rightness or wrongness of a possible war against Iraq, Singaporeans, as individuals and groups, must guard against anti-US feelings taking hold.

The Government's decision must be made on the basis of Singapore's national interest, and that means the collective interest of all Singaporeans. If a war does indeed take place against Iraq, there will be repercussions in the Southeast Asian region, which is predominantly Muslim, and we should prepare for the various scenarios.

Finally, Singaporeans face a challenge from two perspectives. For Muslims, the ongoing debate is what interpretation of Islam will dominate, how to reconcile it with modernity and a secular multi-racial state. For non-Muslims, it is how to negotiate a common space and how to accommodate the concerns of Muslims in building a national way of life, in which all are equal.

We need to show that our pluralistic and tolerant way of life is superior to the one offered by extreme Islamic groups. That our way of life is not about reducing everything to economic growth but is a humane one, based on justice and equality. That our way of life makes room for a diversity of religions, but rejects the religion of oppression and violence.

Sir, it is a positive thing that progressive debates about Islam are taking place in Singapore. Such debates are also ongoing in neighbouring countries. It is helpful to observe the regional debate so as to be able to counter over-simplified arguments of many Muslims and critics of Islam, maintaining that the Quran prescribes this or that.

In Singapore, the discussion of Islam in modernity should not be restricted only to religious and intellectual circles. It is worth noting that in neighbouring countries, there is an active discussion among different Muslim groups on human rights and the women's role in Islam. They include groups such as Malaysia's Sisters of Islam, a group of Muslim professional women committed to promoting the rights of women within the framework of Islam, and also the women's wing of the biggest moderate Muslim group in Indonesia, Nahdlatul Ulama. The women's wing, called Muslimat Nahdlatul Ulama, seeks to empower Muslim women.

Sir, I have heard women leaders from these groups speak. Their underlying argument is that not only the ulamas have the right to codify the text of the Quran, and that interpretations should not be isolated from historical and socio-cultural context, especially regarding women and contemporary society. They argue against the use of religion to justify cultural practices and values that regard women as inferior and subordinate to men. They believe that this has been made possible because men have had exclusive control over the interpretation of the text of the Quran. This is what these Muslim women in these countries have been saying.

In Singapore, it is imperative that the progressive voices of Muslim women be also heard in the ongoing debate on the interpretation of Islam. Battling militant Islam is not the only responsibility of the State but also of the civil society, both Islamic and non-Islamic, involving both men and women.

Sir, in conclusion, we are under threat from terrorism, and we must combat it; there is no denying that. But we must avoid any generalisation so that the justified fear of specific threats does not turn into an undefined fear which makes an enemy of anyone who is overtly religious.

The majority of Singapore Muslims have shown, in their words and their actions, that Islam is a religion of peace, openness and moderation. They are well-placed to show the world that Islam can be a modernising factor, and can make a positive contribution to the peaceful development of this country and the region.

Now is the moment for us to proceed against terrorism with all possible determination and toughness so as to weaken it and to deter sympathisers. And to make clear that, we, the citizens of Singapore, stand together as one united people, regardless of race or religion, against terrorism.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: We will stop here. Mr Wong.