THREAT OF TERRORISM

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand here today in support of the motion.

We have, yesterday and earlier today, heard several references to the threat by the JI as being a new threat. But, actually, it is not new at all. If we really think about it, there are very few things under the sun which are new. The ideological basis and the means and the dimension might be new, but not the threat in itself. If we listen to the voice of Singapore's history, we will actually hear a very loud echo of what we are facing today. Let me just take Members back to life in September 1964, ie, about a year and a half after I was born, and probably before many people in Singapore were born.

This was the headline in the Straits Times of 22nd July 1964:

"Singapore curfew after clashes. The Acting Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak, made an appeal for calm in a broadcast tonight on the clashes which occurred in Singapore, to which 74 people were killed and about 178 injured, leading to the imposition of a curfew from 9.30 pm to 6.00 am.

They quoted Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time saying:

"Each one of us shares a responsibility in keeping the situation here sane and rational."

A disturbance had actually occurred during a mammoth procession which started from the Padang where, earlier in the afternoon, about 25,000 Muslims had gathered to commemorate the birthday of the Prophet. The incident which started the clashes was not immediately known, but scattered incidents were reported as the main body of the procession moved eastward towards Geylang. A series of incidents then occurred near Lorong 3, Geylang, just opposite the Gay World, where ice-water and other stalls were overturned. Fighting broke out between stallholders who grouped together and retaliated. The police were called out in force, and the entire area from Arab Street to Changi Road was cordoned off.

Mr John Jacobs, the President of the then Malayan Indian Congress, said:

"At this time, when we are threatened by external forces, the people of Malaysia should be united. We should remain calm and do what is necessary to create understanding and mutual trust."

A few days later, the Straits Times of 25th July 1964 reported:

"First Peace or Goodwill Committee was set up and their aim was to make effective arrangements for the mutual protection of residents regardless of race to prevent unruly elements from outside the area to come in and stir up trouble or communal hatred and to impress upon each race living in the area the need for restraining their own irresponsible members from creating agitation and communal misunderstandings."

The next day, Singapore's Deputy Premier, Dr Toh Chin Chye, and three Ministers set out to meet leaders in their respective constituencies with the common purpose, which was to instill in people the urgency of maintaining inter-racial religious harmony in an inter-racial society and the dangers of allowing rumours to disrupt the peace and harmony in the State. By 27th July 1964, there were Peace or Goodwill Committees in all 51 constituencies.

The newspapers also reported something else. They reported that some Chinese shopkeepers had refused to extend credit to Malay customers, and some hawkers had refused to sell to them at all. Steps were then taken to have the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and the other Chambers of Commerce to step in. At the same time, the CCCs - there were CCCs back then - together with the kampong penghulus and ketuas did a good job of easing the tension and fear caused between neighbours.

It was also reported on 27th July 1964 when Mr Lee Kuan Yew was speaking at an Extraordinary Delegates Conference of the Singapore NTUC, he called upon the people to keep down extremists who may emerge from any racial group in the State. He warned that if this was not done, then the extremist elements would also emerge from other groups. And he said to the unions - make an effort in your union in the next few days to renew the faith.

The situation slowly stabilised until it flared up again in September 1964, and the Straits Times headline of 5th September 1964 read as follows: "8 Dead, 60 Hurt In New Rioting - Singapore A Danger Zone." A state of danger had been proclaimed in Singapore where the casualty toll in 48 hours of sporadic Indonesian-inspired clashes was given as 8 killed and 60 injured. A curfew was imposed and, over the next few days, more arrests were made. A few days later, the Central Government had swooped down on the ringleaders of the Indonesian plot and they slowly restored order. Eventually, as we know, these problems were stamped out and we moved into an era of racial harmony in the 1970s.

But the point that I wanted to make was the very interesting historical parallels. Then, as now, there were foreign elements instigating our local people to cause strife and enmity. Then, as now, the favourite means were violent means. Then, as now, there was racial tension because the Malays felt after the event that they were being discriminated against, and the others felt that they were upset with them. And then, as now, there were peace and goodwill committees. Now, we call them IRCCs, but the basic purpose and function is the same. Then, as now, there was the call to be rational, tolerant and understanding and a call to reach out and bridge the gap and heal the hurt. And, very importantly, then, as now, the objective of the foreign elements was the same - it was all about gaining political power.

One thing we have to understand about terrorism is that it is a form of war. Anyone who studies the history of war will be familiar with the work of Clausewitz on war. And he defined war as "An act of violence intended to compel our opponents to fulfil their will." And this is exactly what the Jemaah Islamiyah and the Al-Qaeda are trying to do. They are trying to use violence as a means to compel us to fulfil their will. And what is their will? To create a Daulah Islamiyah in the region and they have to do it through violent means because they cannot do it through democratic means. And they know that.

Sir, we should not fall into the trap of thinking that the JI's cause is about religion. It is not. Ultimately, their objective is political. It is all about gaining political power, and they have no hesitation in using and misusing religion in order to do it.

You might say that was a very interesting history lesson, but what was the point of that? The points, or what we can draw from the historical parallels, are these. One, we have faced this threat before. Two, we have overcome it before. Three, we can overcome it now. And from our experience in the past, we have the key to dealing with the present. When you actually look at what we did in the past, you will see that what the White Paper has set out does contain the basic points that will be necessary to deal with this present threat.

The first thing that we have done, and that is what the White Paper is about, is exposure. Anything which is good, anything which is wholesome, anything which is right can stand up to public scrutiny and can stand up when you shine a light on it. And that is what the White Paper purports to do. It sets out the activities of the JI to show everybody and to expose them so that we know exactly what they are, what they are about, what their objectives are, so that we can deal with them. The White Paper is not about Muslims in general. It is about the extremist elements and how every Singaporean, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, can cope with the situation.

The other point of the White Paper, obviously, is how do we counter the threat. And there are three things identified there, which are extremely important. First, enhancing security measures; second, policing the terrorists and extremist ideologies; and, third, strengthening social cohesion and religious harmony.

Now, the first one, enhancing security measures is obviously the role of the Government and security agencies, and I think we can leave this safely in their hands. The second, the policing of ideology is something which I believe is best done by the Muslim community and their leaders. The only thing that the non-Muslims would have to do, obviously, is to be vigilant and to look out for things which may seem suspicious and inform the authorities. But it is the third strand of our strategy in dealing with this threat that is very important - strengthening social cohesion and religious harmony. This is the one task that we cannot delegate to anybody else. This is the responsibility of each and every Singaporean. As it was in 1964, so it is now. It is not the task of the Government, it is not the task of the MPs, CCCs, IRCCs or grassroots leaders alone. It is the responsibility of every taxi driver, every hawker, auntie, uncle, pak chik, mak chik, lawyer, doctor, engineer, secretary, student and factory worker. It is the responsibility of everyone, whether you live in a condominium, a HDB flat or landed property, the responsibility of everyone sitting in this Chamber, up in the Gallery and who walks on the streets of Singapore outside. It is your responsibility and mine.

And how do we do this? The funny thing is that the complex is often achieved by the simple. The simplest thing to do is to look at the points of contacts that we have with people and other races, and that is not just at grassroots activities. That is our everyday life, when we go about our jobs, when we go about interacting with people. It is the small things that matter. Do we take the time and trouble to wish our neighbours of other races and religion, or do we just walk past them and ignore them? If you are an Indian or Malay, do you pause at Chinese New Year to wish your Chinese friends? If you are a Chinese, do you pause at Deepavali or Hari Raya to wish your Indian and Malay friends? Are you a parent who does not let your children play with children of other races? When your children reach perhaps the teenage level, do you tell them that they cannot have a boyfriend or a girlfriend of other races? It is the little, little things like that. Because they all impact on the way we think and act and behave towards somebody else. So that is very important.

At the community level, it is important as well. It is important to reach out and I will just give an example of something which happened in my constituency. For Hari Raya, the Buddhist Lodge, which is in our area, very kindly offered to contribute the sum of $10,000 to be used as ang pows or to buy things for the poor and needy Muslim Malay citizens in our constituency for Hari Raya. It was given with sincerity and goodwill. When the ang pows and the goodies were distributed, they were received with appreciation. And it is things like that which help bridge the gap. So every Singaporean can contribute in part to this strategy of dealing with the JI.

There is another thing which, of course, has surfaced in the course of the debate in the past few days - the concern of the Malay/Muslims that they might be associated with the JI and blamed for what the JI tried to do. If you think about it, this is not so distant from back in 1964 when the Malays were then concerned that they were discriminated against. At that time, it was about the extension of credit and the sale of necessities. Today, in this environment, it is about fear of not being able to get jobs. This is where the employers can step in. How you treat your Malay/Muslim employees will make a big difference in the way that they react to you. As a non-Malay and non-Muslim MP, I would have this to say to the Malay/Muslims in Singapore. We do not blame you for the acts of the JI members. We know that you did not do anything wrong, and it is unfortunate that as a result of a few misguided people, the spotlight is on you and your community. You have to understand that obviously some people of other races will have concern - that is normal. But I think I can safely say that I, and I think every other MP in this House and community leaders, regard you as one of us. We will stand for you and ensure that you are not discriminated against. But in turn, we ask that you stand with us. Stand with us against the JI and against the extremists. Stand with us in making sure that Singapore is kept safe and whole, because it is your home as well as ours. Stand with us in making sure that our way of life and freedom is preserved.

Mr Speaker, if I might just take the liberty to translate into two sentences what I have just said "kami akan bediri bersama kamu, dan akan sedaya upaya memastikan yang masyarakat tidak akan menghadapi diskriminasi". I stand together with you to ensure that the Malays will not be discriminated. We also want the Malay community to stand together with us, with other races, to defend the country, our beloved country, from the threat of the JI and the extremists.