THREAT OF TERRORISM

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

Debate resumed.

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. As the last person in the long list of speakers, I find that almost all the points I want to raise have been touched on by the Members. Nevertheless, in view of the importance and significance of the White Paper, I must still show my support for the motion by the Minister for Home Affairs. I will briefly touch on five aspects.

Firstly, the release of the White Paper is a reflection of the high degree of transparency on the part of the Government. At a dialogue session of the Feedback Unit, many participants endorsed and commended the manner in which the Government tackled the matter, and hoped that the Government will do likewise in other major issues and policy-making. From the reaction of the people, we observe that our society has matured, and we are able to openly discuss sensitive issues like this without incurring any intense reaction.

Secondly, we should commend and reward the officers of the Home Ministry for their contribution, especially the ISD officers. They are the unsung heroes. But because of the secret nature of their work, we cannot openly commend them. And I hope that they will receive some form of appropriate commendation and reward. At the same time, we must ensure that they are provided with enough manpower and resources in order to continue with their arduous responsibility of safeguarding our social stability and national security.

Thirdly, we should not direct our spear or point our fingers at the Muslim community. This is unfair to them because maintaining racial and religious harmony is the duty and responsibility of everyone. These JI activists are just a handful of dangerous elements. They do not represent the entire Muslim community.

As a member of the big Singapore family, we have to be united to support our Muslim brethren. Although there are certain non-Muslim people who have a wrong perception of the Muslim community, we need to correct such a misconception. We have to try to make the non-Muslim community understand that our Muslim brethren are peace loving and patriotic fellow citizens. We must exercise tolerance towards them. We should not fault the whole community just because of a few black sheep among them.

I would like to tell a story. In the Sung Dynasty, there was this great writer by the name of Su Dongpo. I believe you must have heard of his name. He was a devout Buddhist and had a good friend who was a Buddhist monk, named Fo Yin. The two of them enjoyed debating on the teachings of Buddha. One day, while they were practising meditation, Su Dongpo asked the Rev. Fo Yin, "What do I look like?" His monk friend answered, "You are like a Buddha." Su Dongpo was very pleased to hear that. After a while, the monk friend asked him, "What do I look like?" Su Dongpo thought it was a good opportunity for him to make fun of his friend. He said, "You look like a heap of cow dung!" When Fo Yin heard this, he said nothing and smilingly nodded his head. Su Dongpo was very pleased with himself, thinking that he had won a battle of wits against Fo Yin. When he returned home, he boasted to his younger sister, Su Xiao Xiao, how he had won over Fo Yin. On hearing this, Su Xiao Xiao said, "Brother, you are wrong. You have actually lost to the Rev. Fo Yin. Because Fo Yin's mind was full of Buddhism; what he saw before him was nothing but Buddha. But your mind was full of cow dung, that is why you only saw cow dung."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, how should our non-Muslim communities perceive the Muslim community? A mind of Buddha, or a mind full of cow dung?

Fourthly, the Muslim community should also make their stand clear to all Singaporeans. They should be explicit in their stand and draw a line between themselves and the extremists. They should not let the other people think that since they are Muslims, they would sympathise with the JI because of their religion. Therefore, I fully support our Malay MPs and the Muslim leaders for their statements. But more has to be done. The Muslim community leaders should explain to all Singaporeans how do they practise their religious teaching in a multi-racial, multi-religious society, and how they would strive to integrate with the mainstream to make greater contribution to our society. They should ensure that their followers would not make narrow interpretation of Islam and shut themselves up in their cocoon, alienating from society.

In my conversation with the people, certain Chinese are quite confused on certain religious issues, eg, the wearing of the tudung. They asked me whether it is compulsory for Muslim women to wear the tudung, and whether it is true that when wearing the tudung, they cannot shake hands with other people. They are confused about these issues. So, if we want to make progress, we have to make a breakthrough. When the non-Muslims open their arms to welcome the Muslims, the Muslims should be open minded and be prepared to work together to achieve greater religious harmony.

Lastly, the JI incident must certainly be an eye opener for all the religious groups in Singapore. Therefore, I fully support the religious leaders' attempt to formulate a code of conduct governing their religious teaching. We should not mix politics with religion. We have to emphasise the social functions of religion and urge all the religions to fulfill their social obligations. Water can float a boat; it can also sink a boat. Religion can do the same to our society and to our nation.

For human beings, clean water is a basic necessity to sustain life. Frequent drinking of water can cleanse out all the toxins in our body. A good religion is like pure water. It can cleanse up the soul of a human being. For example, the universal love of Christianity, the mercifulness of Buddhism, the appeal for charity and good conduct of Taoism, and the peace advocated by Islam - all these are aimed at making one a better person and to lead a positive way of life.

On the other hand, impure water will bring about diseases. If a cup of water has been poisoned, when drunk, it will slowly damage the nervous system, kidney, liver and, eventually, cause death. A religion that has been distorted and misused by other people can also slowly corrode our mind and we can be led astray to do things which are detrimental to ourselves and to other people, just like what the JI has done.

On a higher plane, for example, rainwater can bring moisture to the earth, bring forth all living things. If water is properly controlled, it can irrigate land and generate electricity. But, on the other hand, a rampant flood and inundation will cause devastation to land and properties, and even loss of lives. Religion is the same. Good religions serve to cleanse our mind and the followers are urged to engage in charity work and bring good to society. Therefore, we must endorse what the religious groups have done in Singapore, in setting up hospitals, nursing homes and other social welfare work. They offer services to people, regardless of their race, language or religion. Such social services will help to promote religious harmony and mutual trust, and serve to promote prosperity of the nation.

On the other hand, if a religion is solely preoccupied with its evangelical work and increasing its fold or, worse, if it is misused by other undesirable elements, it will bring about social disintegration and the break-up of the nation. Therefore, the various religious leaders, whether Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Taoist, should constantly be mindful that the JI incidents could well be repeated in their own religion. Therefore, they should be vigilant against these undesirable elements which twist the religious teachings to incite hatred, and harm the social security and peace.

In a multi-religious society like ours, we have to emphasise the common ground, and not the differences. More important is that we should respect the faith of others when we engage in evangelical work. We should not denigrate other religions. When they carry out evangelical work, they should curb the excessive zeal of their followers, so as not to hurt the feelings of other religious groups.

Sir, there is a saying, "Be magnanimous to others, but be strict to oneself." We should not expect other people to respect us when we ourselves do not show our respect to them. Therefore, we have to be exemplary in our conduct, whether we are Chinese, Malays or Indians. As long as we are Singaporeans, whether we are Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or Hindus, every one of us should learn to become a better person, eg, respect others, be considerate to others, show concern to others, etc.

It is only when we have won the respect of others can we influence them so as to reform society. A harmonious and gracious society starts from the heart of the people. It cannot be achieved through Government legislation.

Sir, I support the motion.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I see no need for this role. Our hon. Members have had three days of debate on this, and I will not try to agonise them further. But if they bear with me, I will just spend a bit of time to try to round up what all the hon. Members have said in the last three days.

Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all the Members of this House for expressing their views on the White Paper and for their strong support, across all the parties, for the motion.

In the years ahead, the broad recommendations in the White Paper will have to be implemented effectively and sensibly, and in concrete terms - practical measures. But let me state this very clearly. The White Paper does not offer a panacea for the complete and permanent eradication of the terrorist threat that we are facing today. The White Paper's recommendations are actions we can develop and pursue domestically. These actions are necessary. But we must not be under any illusion that, by themselves, they are enough. For one thing, as I mentioned in my speech two days ago, this is a threat which is rooted outside Singapore. The threat cannot be eliminated by Singapore's action alone. Domestically, the recommendations in the White Paper are just directions which we can develop and pursue. But, even then, these do not foreclose any other good ideas, or options, or suggestions or avenues which may be helpful in dealing with this terrorist threat.

Sir, to enhance security, we will continue to make ourselves a harder target for the terrorists. We will continue to develop strong, practical and sustainable defensive measures. Some inconvenience to our life, such as traffic jams at the checkpoints, cannot be avoided. It is a price worth paying for better security. I share Mr Chiam See Tong's view that even one bomb going off in Singapore is one bomb too many. But there are no guarantees - such as the one sought by Mr Steve Chia - which can insure Singaporeans against the violence of terrorism, whether it is spotted outside or inside Singapore. Indeed, as several Members of the House, including Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, alluded to, more realistically, Singaporeans must get involved and take ownership of this national threat to our security, because it confronts all of us - Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Singaporeans cannot afford to hold the complacent belief that the Government will always insure them against a terrorist incident - that there can never be a bomb going off in Singapore. No government can provide this assurance, no matter how well prepared it is. Singaporeans, like the young people whom Prof. Chin referred to, do themselves a disservice, if they are apathetic and leave it to the Government to deal with this threat alone. Neither can they afford to believe that this threat is not real, like some of those who attended the Feedback Unit's session and who expressed doubt about the genuineness of this JI case.

Both groups, if they have no sense of the clear and present danger terrorism poses to their life, will be a liability to our national effort to instill vigilance against this threat. Whether it is the fight against crime or drugs or, in our present case, the fight against terrorism, it is citizens' involvement and support which are vital. The strongest defensive measure in any country against terrorism is always the vigilance and the resilience of its citizens and residents. This can come about only if citizens share in the concerns over terrorism and take ownership in helping to tackle this threat. And I agree with Mr Gan Kim Yong that we should prepare our people on what to do when a bomb should go off. We will do this through a national security awareness campaign or programme starting next month. But, have no illusions about it too. No number of campaigns or amount of national education is enough, if the people themselves do not treat this threat seriously.

It was the concern of a Muslim Singaporean who gave the crucial lead to ISD's uncovering of the Jemaah Islamiyah in December 2001. He is not alone. There have been many like him who have felt that sense of civic duty to step forward and report what they believe are potential security threats. Since September 11, we have received numerous reports from the public which have been helpful in the work of our law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, we have also received numerous hoaxes and pranks which have strained and wasted our limited policing resources. That is why the police will take a very serious view of anyone who either perpetrates a hoax or who spreads rumours which generate anxiety, tension or distrust, especially between our ethnic communities. If anyone in good faith observes something which he feels is of potential security threat or concern, he should not start a rumour, but instead report it immediately to the authorities, so that it may be effectively and quickly investigated and verified.

Both Dr Ong Chit Chung and Prof. Chin Tet Yung pointed out that, given the nature of the terrorist network, counter-measures should have a regional dimension. This is a valid observation. I believe that governments in the region and beyond realise this and recognise the value of developing and mobilising collective resources and knowledge to deal with this terrorist threat. Indeed, efforts are always ongoing to expand the level and extent of cooperation and exchanges within the region. Frankly speaking, this may be easier said in the case of some established domains, eg, intelligence and exchange and perhaps, more challenging, in newer areas, such as collective action.

On our part, we are committed to giving all practical assistance to our foreign partners who are serious in fighting this terrorist threat. This has included, and will continue to include, access to our detainees, where they are relevant to the cases under investigation or prosecution by these foreign governments.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to translate into action the second recommendation of policing against terrorist and extremist ideology, our Muslim leaders from the various organisations will have to work closely together in a consultative and open manner. They must ensure that their efforts are understood by the community at large, and not in any way be seen to undermine the legitimate religious pursuits and interests within the community.

We must get our focus right. As Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed rightly concluded, this is an ideological battle, and Muslim Singaporeans must not allow themselves to be subverted and be a party or proxy to such threats by terrorists. The Jemaah Islamiyah detainees are not marginalised individuals driven by a deep sense of grievance against Singapore society or by the feeling of discrimination and oppression in Singapore. They were driven by the misguided belief in the vision of a Daulah Islamiyah - an Islamic regional state - to be achieved by revolutionary force. The centre of their regional Islamic state is not Singapore, but Indonesia. In fact, the Singapore JI is only a district-level unit of the Malaysian Jemaah Islamiyah branch, whose leaders are in Malaysia.

We need our Muslim MPs, ulamas, asatizahs and community leaders, therefore, to be united, in providing a clear direction to the community to counter and reject extremism, extremists and terrorist ideology. They should set aside their individual interests and differences and come together to face the common threat with determination and perseverance.

As Mr Ahmad Khalis explained, our Muslim leaders have an important role, not just to guide the Muslim community, but also to correct erroneous perceptions of Islam which may be purveyed by the ill-informed. In addition, they must help to turf out the dangerous few, who, as Mr Heng Chee How argued, purvey extremist ideology even as they hide within, and prey on our larger Muslim community. As my colleague, Dr Yaacob, put it, every myopic, extremist or radical view must be challenged and exposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, tackling the third presentation in the White Paper of strengthening our social cohesion and religious harmony is a fundamental and on-going enterprise in our nation-building, which preceded the terrorist threat, and which will continue even after it is over. Every country needs to form some conception of the kind of society it wants to be. For Singapore, since its independence, this has been that of a secular multi-ethnic meritocratic nation state. This is the best political structure, which ensures that our various ethnic communities, regardless of their numerical size, can be equally assured of enough space to thrive, promote and pursue their religion and culture in relative freedom.

In an ethnically plural society, the secular state is centred upon a common civic space which can bind all the ethnic communities. This space is determined significantly by the separation of politics and religion. If we allow politics and religion to be mixed, we will be brewing a very powerful amalgam, which will pit one ethnic group against another in ceaseless political competition.

Sir, as Prof. Chin and other MPs argued in this debate, the secular state which rests on the condition of keeping politics and religion separate, is not just good, but necessary for Singapore's survival. It allows each community to pursue its ethnic interest, so long as it does not undermine the political cohesion as a centre. No single community can push for the maximum space for itself without restraint and not expect a reaction from the other communities.

I agree with my colleague, Dr Yaacob, that in Singapore we must achieve unity in diversity. The stronger the bonds at the centre, the deeper the level of inter-communal tolerance and trust, the greater the space for diversity for each community. No single community can grow beyond what the whole society can accommodate at any point in time. The alternative to this arrangement is an unmediated free-for-all political society, where every community self-centredly pushes for maximum space. In such a situation, the majority community will eventually subjugate, overwhelm the minorities, and communal conflict and competition will inevitably be the order of the day.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, several MPs spoke about the need to develop and expand dialogue and the common space among the communities. Indeed, this is what we have been practising all these years since independence. While we can continue to enhance the dialogue between ethnic communities in order to deepen inter-communal bond, the effort, although important, is not enough. Singapore is too small a country to afford the coming of a society where we can have any community withdrawing into its own cocoon and living separate and cut off from the rest. Commitment and participation in the common secular space is vital, so that all Singaporeans, regardless of ethnicity, are collectively anchored and engaged in defining a national space where the Singaporean identity is rooted.

These are considerations which must guide the conduct of all communities, even as they pursue the developments of ethnic issues close to their hearts. Singaporeans can be both pious Muslims, Buddhists, Christians or Hindus, and good citizens at the same time. To be both, they need to be able to appreciate the line between the obligation as citizens and their duties as religious faithfuls. Although the strengthening of social cohesion and religious harmony is a stable and vital part of our nation building, the current threat of terrorism raises the subject more urgently in our consciousness today. In a way, the JI arrests are a wake-up call for all Singaporeans. The current threat of terrorism has the real potential of unravelling what we have achieved and fracturing our communal relations which, even when mended, will be permanently scarred and never quite the same again.

Singapore's state of social cohesion is a dynamic and evolving one over the last 37 years. It does not start or end with the White Paper. As Ms Indranee Rajah noted, there are echoes of the past surfacing in this debate because the issues of race and religion in a society such as ours are deeply embedded and are perennial concerns. But, as Dr Wang Kai Yuen rightly observed, we have not stood still and we have come some way, and there is still a long way to go in this journey of nation building.

The strength of ethnic harmony in Singapore today has allowed us sufficient confidence to discuss the difficult issues related to the threats of terrorism in a mature, rational and balanced manner. This has characterised our dialogues with the community, and I am glad that it has also been largely reflected in this debate.

I was particularly impressed and taken by the stout rejections by several MPs, like Mr Hawazi and Dr Wang Kai Yuen, of the caricature of the Malay community as an under-performing, discriminated, ethnic group, who needs a handout by way of affirmative actions in order to succeed. They argued, rationally, on the basis of the fact and rightly collected feedback and not on some individual perceptions and loose anecdotes.

Two MPs mentioned that there are issues still to be resolved in our ethnic community which are relevant to social cohesion. I agree. Because ours is not a perfect society. None is. The important thing is that in our society, if a person has a genuine problem, he has effective avenues for redress, including resorting to the law for protection and support. Are there individuals who have grievances in our society? Of course, there must be. Every society has its share of them. Are there problems and issues in the Malay community? Obviously there are. Not just in the Malay community, but in every community. There are some who perceive that they are discriminated because of their age or their gender, too. But, does this amount to marginalisation of an entire community outweighing all the facts which tell us otherwise? Or worse, is this reason for anyone to cynically dismiss the findings of a team of psychologists, counsellers, professional investigators, and the detainees themselves, about the motivation of the JI detainees? We must not legitimise the JI terrorists as some kind of a victim of society. Whatever the case that may be in countries elsewhere, this is not the case here. If this theory of marginalisation is correct, then how do we account for the highly educated, and successful professional people, with PhDs, graduate qualifications and some from western universities and businessmen in the leadership of the Malaysian Jemaah Islamiyah organisation, which our JI network is subordinate to? And these leaders are the product of an affirmative action policy, the bumiputra policy which favours them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on social cohesion, and especially inter-ethnic harmony, we have done well. The fact that we can discuss such issues candidly in this House is one's reflection of the greater confidence and maturity. However, this is not to say that there is no room for growth in the strength of our social cohesion and the quality and the depth of our inter-ethnic relations. Far from it. Otherwise, we would not have made it a key recommendation in this White Paper.

Bonding our people and nurturing social cohesion is a perpetual and continuing enterprise. It is always dynamic, which means it can either grow stronger or weaker, over time, depending on what we do as a people. We must therefore jealously guard what we have achieved and build on the accumulated social capital of trust that the last 30 years of communal peace have afforded us.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope that we come out of this debate more sober and clear eyed over the terrorist threat that we are now facing. But we must by no means be intimidated. We must be vigilant, but not paranoid. We must live with courage and not be cowed. The White Paper has given us an opportunity to publicly discuss sensitive issues of race and religion. In the face of adversity, there is also a valuable opportunity to galvanise and mobilise our ethnic communities to affirm and strengthen our values of mutual tolerance and communal trust. This we must do.

There has, in fact, been a whole new energy in inter-ethnic engagements following September 11, and the JI episodes. There is support of effort by the Government, like the IRCC, but just as encouraging, there have also been initiatives by the various ethnic and religious groups on their own to reach out, make contacts and enhance interactions and understanding, whether it be by way of mutual visits to places of worship, or small group discussions on religious practices and values. As Mdm Ho Geok Choo said, this congruence between the efforts from the top and the efforts from below in our society is important, because the quality of inter-ethnic relations cannot be decreed by the Government, or willed by the creation of formal structures, but must ultimately be fleshed by the substantive participation and involvement of ordinary citizens in their daily interactions and contact with each other as they go about their daily lives. They must take a personal responsibility to promote inter-racial interactions. They must reach out to one another. If we continue to nurture mutual trust and attachment in the relations between our communities, I am confident that we will prevail over the terrorist threat and a peaceful multi-ethnic Singapore as we know it today will survive and continue for generations to come.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House (a) acknowledges that the terrorist threat to Singapore is real and serious; (b) supports the firm actions the Government has taken against the threat to the security of Singapore posed by the Jemaah Islamiyah group and other militant and extremist groups in the region; and, (c) endorses the recommendations put forth in the White Paper on The Jemaah Islmiyah Arrests and the Threat of Terrorism, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 2003, to counter the terrorist threat by (i) enhancing the security measures; (ii) policing the spread of terrorist and extremist ideology; and, (iii) strengthening our social cohesion and religions harmony.