STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR NATIONAL SECURITY (Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for Security and Defence)

Column: 217

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR NATIONAL SECURITY:

(Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for Security and Defence) Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in August last year, when I was appointed the Coordinating Minister for Security and Defence to review the security situation in Singapore, I asked myself two questions: First, what does

Column: 218

National Security mean in an age in which transnational terrorism is the biggest security threat facing all countries in the world, including Singapore? Second, how can we best organise ourselves to continue to keep Singapore safe and secure against the threat of terrorism which threatens our economy and society?

Sir, these two questions are simple to state but the answers are complex and difficult to formulate. The questions are not unique to Singapore. Every country in the world today is confronted with these two questions and is struggling to shape responses which are appropriate to their circumstances and situation. Over the past twelve months, I have discussed the subject at length with my colleagues, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Defence in the Security Policy Review Committee, with our Government officials and also with analysts and commentators who are knowledgeable in the subject.

I have also led a number of study visits to various countries (including the United States, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and some of our neighbouring countries) to meet with my counterparts in the defence and security fields in order to gather a range of perspectives on how other countries deal with their security concerns and how they have organised themselves to ensure their national security in this new security landscape.

After almost a year of deliberation, study, discussions and many meetings, I have arrived at two main conclusions: First, national security in an age of transnational terrorism cannot be divided into separate tasks, eg, external defence against a military threat and internal security against terrorists and criminals. Rather, all countries, including Singapore, have to deal with a continuum of security challenges ranging from state-directed military threats to low-intensity conflicts to ideologically inspired and globally

Column: 219

pervasive terrorism. And the second conclusion is that to cope with the new security challenges, we need to deal with security threats today on a "whole of government" basis, instead of dividing the tasks into watertight compartments to be dealt with by separate Ministries. Formulating and implementing an integrated and coordinated security policy is best done today by setting up a Coordination Unit at the centre of Government which, of course, is the Prime Minister's Office, which will coordinate strategic planning, policy formulation and capability development in security and intelligence to cope with the threat of transnational terrorism.

The above conclusions have been accepted by the Cabinet. The purpose of my Ministerial Statement today is to explain how we have come to these conclusions and the measures which we will take to restructure our Government machinery to meet Singapore's new security needs.

Transnational terrorism

Sir, transnational terrorism has become a central concern for all countries in the world today. Transnational terrorism poses a serious and immediate threat to Singapore's national security. Singapore is a prime target for terrorists and we have to live with the real prospect of a terrorist attack. This threat will be with us for a long time. We must be prepared for a long-drawn campaign against an enemy capable of conducting organised, deliberate and prolonged attacks.

Sir, transnational terrorism is terrorism that is globalised. It has a global network with a global reach. It has an agenda that is unconstrained by geographical or political boundaries. Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda does not only target the United States. It also seeks to destroy America's

Column: 220

allies in the West and throughout the world, overturning the international political order in the process, in order to establish pan-Islamic caliphates. Al-Qaeda has a network of affiliated terrorist groups across the globe, including, of course, the Jemaah Islamiyah in this region, who subscribe not only to Al-Qaeda's deviant ideology, but also to its extreme methods of terror. The attacks are more lethal and dangerous than ever before. If the terrorists are ever able to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, I have no doubt that they will use them. Their ruthlessness leaves no room for negotiation.

More dangerously, these terrorists are not mere criminals. They have shown a degree of strategic sophistication that belies the extremism of their methods. The Madrid bombing is a clear example of a terrorist attack designed to achieve the strategic effect of changing a government, and dividing the US and its allies. Similarly, the kidnapping of hostages in Iraq going on almost on a daily basis is designed to affect the responses of countries in supporting the Iraqi government and the US-led coalition.

Since 9-11, many commentators, analysts and security officials have discussed extensively about the nature of terrorist threats facing countries in the world today. I do not intend to burden Members with recounting the innumerable opinions, books, reports and speeches which have dealt on this topic. In my view, the nature and significance of what transnational terrorism means to the world today is aptly summed up in a speech given by Mr George Shultz, the former Secretary of State of the United States, and delivered in May this year. Mr Shultz said, and I quote from his speech:

"(Transnational terrorism) is the method of choice of an extensive internationally connected ideological movement dedicated to the destruction of our international system of

Column: 221

co-operation and progress. ... The movement's objectives are in four layers or phases:

(i) to drive the international community's people and influences out of the Middle-East (the religious core of the Muslim world);

(ii) to overthrow all Arab regimes that are in a working relationship with the international community;

(iii) to gain a more entrenched and threatening foothold in the most populous parts of the Muslim world which have traditionally been different in their outlook from Muslims on the Arabian peninsula - these would include South East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia - and inside the Western world (which is Europe); and

(iv) eventually to eliminate all vestiges of the international state system from a unified Islamic theocratic rule. ..."

And Mr Shultz concluded that today:

"The international state system is under determined attack by a religiously motivated movement using terrorist attacks of dramatic lethality as its weapon of choice. The war is against this movement, not just the weapon of terror."

Sir, in this new security environment, the danger to us comes from an enemy without shape or country, and with the capacity to continually threaten Singapore and Singaporean interests. Today, national security means that we must be prepared not just to deal with the contingency of a conventional military conflict, but also to be always alert and ready to confront threats at the other end of the security spectrum, particularly those posed by transnational terrorism.

Sir, we have already enhanced homeland security by implementing various measures to safeguard Singapore. But the impact of transnational terrorism will be felt in many areas, and the

Column: 222

responses to the threat will be provided by many agencies.

With transnational terrorism, the traditional approach of delineating the boundaries between Ministries and agencies, so that each is solely responsible for a particular area, will no longer work. The experience of other countries since the 9-11 attacks, as well as our own, shows the inadequacy of a stovepipe approach. The separation of responsibilities between the Ministry of Home Affairs for internal security and the Ministry of Defence for external defence leaves gaps in the defence of Singapore against transnational terrorism. Furthermore, no Ministry or Government department has developed the full range of competencies or capabilities to deal with this threat. The resources needed to deal with terrorism reside in many agencies. For example, aviation security draws on the resources of MINDEF for air defence, and of MHA for implementing the air marshal programme. Maritime security depends on the Police Coast Guard and the Navy working together with the Maritime and Port Authority to secure our port and territorial waters.

Sir, the key to ensuring national security today lies in strengthening co-ordination and integration among Government agencies involved in national security, particularly between the external and domestic intelligence agencies, because intelligence is a crucial weapon in the fight against transnational terrorism.

In times of crisis, eg, when we were fighting SARS last year, there is no doubt that all Government agencies will work together to deal with the problems at hand. However, we should not wait for a crisis to happen. We must anticipate such problems and deal upfront with inter-agency issues that relate to national security policy and plans where there is no clear ownership among the various Government Ministries and agencies. We

Column: 223

need to ensure that the policies and plans of individual agencies are aligned to and consistent with the national mandate. To this end, co-ordination in the development of national security strategy, policy and plans is most effective if it is driven from the centre of Government, which is the Prime Minister's Office.

National Security Coordination Secretariat

Sir, the Government has therefore decided to set up a new National Security Coordination Secretariat (NSCS) in the Prime Minister's Office. The NSCS will be overseen by a Permanent Secretary for National Security and Intelligence Coordination (NSIC) who will report directly to the Prime Minister through the Coordinating Minister for Security and Defence. The Permanent Secretary (NSIC) will chair two Committees:

(i) a National Security Coordinating Committee comprising the Permanent Secretary (Foreign Affairs),

Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs), Permanent Secretary (Defence) and other Permanent Secretaries, when needed, to coordinate national security activities; and

(ii) an Intelligence Coordinating Committee comprising these three Permanent Secretaries whom I have named, and the Heads of our intelligence agencies to oversee the work and progress of counter-terrorism intelligence efforts.

To assist the Permanent Secretary (NSIC), the NSCS will incorporate two key agencies, ie, the National Security Coordination Centre (NSCC), and the Joint Counter-Terrorism Centre (JCTC).

The National Security Coordination Centre will focus on national security policy coordination and planning. NSCC's operations will include developing

Column: 224

programmes for risk assessment and public awareness and launching a national security course for public officers. NSCC will also monitor the on-going development of capabilities to address threats stemming from biological, chemical, radiological and cyber-terrorism as well as initiatives to enhance aviation, maritime and land transport security. A very important responsibility of NSCC is to build up, together with our think-tanks, a better and deeper understanding of the ideology which fuels the anger and the motivations of terrorists. More details are contained in the Fact Sheet which I am asking the Clerk of Parliament to give out to Members now. [ Copies of Fact Sheet distributed to hon. Members. ]

Sir, the Joint Counter-Terrorism Centre (JCTC) will focus on counter-terrorism intelligence coordination. It will be the focal point for strengthening the cooperation in counter-terrorism intelligence between the Security and Intelligence Division (SID) of MINDEF and the Internal Security Department (ISD) of MHA, particularly in the area of strategic intelligence needed for policy making. Working under the guidance of the Intelligence Coordinating Committee, JCTC will have the challenging task of developing and enhancing the cooperative modus operandi between our two intelligence agencies (SID and ISD) that have hitherto worked largely independent of each other. JCTC will not be directly involved in operations but it will have full information access to ISD, SID and other relevant agencies pertaining to its conduct of strategic analysis on an all-source basis. In other words, Sir, JCTC will act as the integration node in the production of strategic counter-terrorism intelligence from its inputs from all sources for integrated analysis and assessment. JCTC will then be able to provide the higher level strategic picture that is needed to formulate national strategy and policy and plans for the development of national counter terrorism capabilities.

Column: 225

Sir, coordinating the responsibilities and work of a number of Ministries and agencies is always difficult. But whatever the difficulties, we must succeed in better coordinating planning, policy and intelligence, because failure to do so will mean a degraded capability which will not be adequate to deal with the threat of transnational terrorism.

Measures taken after 9-11

Sir, even before 9-11, we have been concerned with the issue of terrorism. Several of our Ministries and agencies, particularly the Ministry of Home Affairs, have been developing capabilities to deal with specific threats, eg, chemical and biological threats. But 9-11 has reinforced the urgency and importance of dealing with terrorism and, where necessary, we have put in place several ad hoc coordinating arrangements to protect Singapore and Singaporeans from terrorist attacks. The Security Policy Review Committee that I chair has provided strategic policy direction and guidance. Ad-hoc committees of Permanent Secretaries have been set up to co-ordinate the development and implementation of strategic responses to various threats, including aviation security, land transport security and maritime security.

Through these ad hoc arrangements, much has already been achieved in hardening Singapore against terrorist attacks. Since 9-11, we have put in place enhanced security measures that cover our land entry points, airport, seaports, critical installations and key public areas. We have also improved our capabilities to deal with explosives, and chemical and biological threats. The work we have done over the last three years has raised our overall vigilance and readiness, and helped to close obvious capability gaps that were identified.

But, Sir, it is unwise to depend on such ad hoc arrangements in the long run.

Column: 226

They must be replaced with robust institutional structures. The Strategic Framework for National Security will address the issues I have discussed, close the gaps which we have identified, and put in place the machinery to enable the Government to systemically deal with the security issues which confront our nation today.

National resilience

Sir, enhancing Singapore 's national security cannot be left to the Government alone. The people and the business community must play their part. The Government's efforts to deal with the threat of transnational terrorism can only be effective with the full participation of all Singaporeans. Everyone has a part to play in Singapore 's national security. The key ideas behind the Strategic Framework for National Security will be disseminated to create awareness through a public document titled "The Fight against Terror: Singapore 's National Security Strategy" to be launched in August at a National Security Seminar.

Conclusion

Sir, the most fundamental duty of Government is to protect the lives of our citizens and their property and interests. Fulfilling this duty requires constant vigilance and bold thinking to pre-empt and prevent terrorist attacks. In this connection, Sir, I - and I think the whole of Singapore - should pay a tribute to our security and defence agencies, particularly MINDEF, MHA and their agencies, and also SID and ISD, for their sterling efforts and hard work to keep Singapore safe from terrorist attacks, despite the turbulent and dangerous security environment in the last few years. The Strategic Framework for National Security will now establish the baseline which will enable us to further evolve our security strategy to deal even

Column: 227

more effectively with the long term threat of terrorism that is constantly evolving and adapting.

When the National Security Coordination Secretariat and its two agencies, ie, the NSCC and JCTC, are properly staffed and fully operational, our Government Ministries and agencies will be better placed to work even more closely and effectively with the people and the business community to keep Singapore safe and secure.

I urge Members to support the Strategic Framework for Singapore 's National Security which I have just outlined. I welcome your ideas, questions and views to continuously improve our efforts to safeguard Singapore 's future.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with these measures that have been announced by the Coordinating Minister for Security and Defence, the House can be very assured that the Government is continually doing all it can to enhance the safety and security of its citizens. We all recognise that security is the responsibility of every citizen, and I am referring to this public document that the Coordinating Minister has just spoken about.

Firstly, can I ask the Coordinating Minister whether we can put out this document in a very simplified way and make it available to as many households as possible in Singapore, perhaps to all schools even, so that members of the public are fully aware of what the Government is doing and what role they themselves can play in enhancing the security of the country?

Secondly, can I ask whether it is possible for his Ministry to come up with a CD presentation that MPs can use to

Column: 228

present to their grassroots leaders so as to communicate the message?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister, do you want to give your reply now?

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: No. Later.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes. Mr Leong Horn Kee.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to also thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for his very clear explanation about national security. I would like to ask whether it is timely now to heighten the level of public awareness about these various potential national threats, such as train attacks, explosions at installations, or even biochemical attacks. If we heighten the level of awareness and make it more public, there will be more public concern and, therefore, people get more worried. I think, on balance, it is better to actually start with more programmes of such kind whereby the public can be educated, as Mr Tan Soo Khoon said, on television, by publications and various means, so that we know how to prepare ourselves and how to react when such instances do happen.

In particular, I would also like to ask whether we could also involve the schools, grassroots organisations and the public in general in getting involved in some of these exercises and to suggest whether we should conduct national alert emergency exercises and programmes, so that people can practise and learn how to react.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome this integrated and coordinated approach to our national security. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister whether the National Security Coordinating Secretariat would have additional budget to give it the bite and

Column: 229

also to influence the other Ministries. Although now that you have a Permanent Secretary based in this Coordinating Secretariat, I wonder how influential this Permanent Secretary will be in motivating the other Ministries and agencies to come and work together. Will he, for example, be able to influence its budget? Can he influence, for example, the appointment and promotion of civil servants working in different Ministries, because these are critical elements for them?

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, the establishment of the NSCS under the PMO and the appointment of a senior civil servant focused on national security are important steps that demonstrate the Government's serious approach to the new threats facing us. But I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the exact mandate and authority given to this unit and the Permanent Secretary, as it would lead to how seriously the measures would be taken and whether it would be tight coordination or loose coordination. Can I ask the Minister whether the role is to coordinate in terms of giving suggestions on how to improve networking, or will the agencies and the Ministries that are involved be required to respond to his directions?

Related to that question is whether a new secretariat under the PMO would also have authority over the planning and budgeting resources and the personnel required to encourage, if not force, the various Ministries and agencies to take joint coordination and operations seriously. I would also like to join my colleague, Dr Ong Chit Chung, to ask whether a budget should be allocated to this secretariat, to make sure that it will be able to carry out its programmes effectively.

Sir, my last question is, given the range of threats that have been mentioned in the Minister's statement, whether there is a clear sense of priorities

Column: 230

in terms of which threat we should be focusing on, because that would give us a sense of how to allocate our resources as dollars are finite, and also to give the public a sense of what sort of threats we should be looking out and preparing for.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the four Members for their questions. I thought I would answer these questions first.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Mr Leong Horn Kee have brought up this question about involving the public to ensure national security for Singapore. Sir, this is a most important point. As I said in my speech just now, national security cannot be left to the Government alone. National security is the responsibility of every Singaporean. This has to be brought home to grassroots organisations, schools and to the general public. That is why we are preparing a public document to explain the ideas in the statement which I have just made, but in a much more friendly and accessible manner with illustrations, photographs and in simpler language. We will disseminate this publication at a national security seminar to be held in late August and make it available to schools and households. We would appreciate the help of Members of Parliament to distribute it to their constituencies. We will also make available a CD presentation which Members can use when they talk to their grassroots leaders. We also need to publicise this through the media, the newspapers, the television and the radio. We will arrange for discussions and interviews in order to put these points across. It is difficult to put across the main points and all these nuances in one presentation. I have set out the main points today. We will elaborate on these in the coming months. In this case, Members can do a great service to Singapore by working with the National Security Coordinating Committee and the Secretariat in order to put across these ideas and to explain the significance of

Column: 231

these measures to the man-in-the-street and to the public.

Dr Ong Chit Chung has asked whether the National Security Coordination Secretariat will be given an additional budget in order to influence other Ministries. I think the same question has also been asked by Ms Irene Ng about how we ensure that there is cooperation between the Ministries.

Sir, let me say, first of all, that we should be proud of our security agencies - MINDEF, MHA, SCDF, the Police, SID and ISD. These are first-class organisations. They are staffed by dedicated professionals, led by competent leaders who have the vision and determination to keep Singapore safe. And because they are good organisations, it is to be expected that they would have different views about how to handle issues and different perspectives on how to ensure national security. If they were people without strong convictions, it would have been much easier to get agreement on the measures which I have just outlined. But because they are strong individuals with strong views, we have had to trash out these issues over many meetings and over many months, and that is good. I welcome that because I am assured by that process that they have applied their minds and where we have been able to get agreement, it has not compromised their core interests.

But to ensure coordination, the most effective way is through the budgeting process. The Ministry of Finance has made available to the Security Policy Review Committee a revolving budget of $50 million which they top up from time to time, as and when we need to launch urgently some national security programmes. For example, we were very concerned over the last few months with the security of some of our embassies

Column: 232

overseas. With the measures which we have taken in Singapore, we are confident that we have hardened Singapore. And, therefore, if any terrorists were to attack Singapore or Singaporeans' interest, it would most probably be overseas rather than at home. The SPRC discussed with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), pointed out the danger, and MFA has now launched a programme to ensure that all our embassies are safe. Of course, that requires money. And through the normal process of budgeting, it may take some time. But this is an urgent issue.

The SPRC made available the necessary money to MFA so that they could get the programme started as soon as possible because we cannot waste time when lives are at stake. Our officials, our Ambassadors, our foreign service officials in our embassies live and work abroad to serve Singapore, and we must ensure that their working environment is safe and that they will not be blown up by a car bomb or by a suicide attack. And through this process of a revolving budget, it has been most helpful in getting such programmes quickly off the ground and we will make the same arrangements, with the cooperation of the Ministry of Finance, for the National Security Coordination Secretariat.

How do we ensure coordination between the domestic intelligence and the external intelligence agencies? It is very difficult. The difficulty of getting, for example, in the United States, the CIA and the FBI to work together is well-known. If you open any newspaper today, their problems are manifest. I hope that through the arrangement which we have set, through the good sense and cooperation of the individuals and the leaders in our intelligence agencies, we will be able to foster this cooperation.

The British have the same problem and they have a lot of experience with terrorism because they have been fighting

Column: 233

the IRA terrorists for many decades. Their intelligence arms are MI5 (which is their domestic intelligence arm) and MI6 (which is their external intelligence arm). MI5 reports to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, MI6 reports to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and GCHQ, which is their signal intelligence arm, reports to the Secretary of State for Defence. Ultimately, to ensure that these three intelligence arms work together, they have only one intelligence budget which is under the control of the Permanent Secretary for Coordination and he allocates it between the three intelligence arms and therefore compels them to work together. We have not gone as far as the British in our proposal. I do not expect that we will need to do so, but at the end of the day, we have to have an arrangement whereby SID and ISD will work together to enable the Government to have an integrated intelligence picture. If intelligence is not there, if the intention is flawed, then we can get into big problems, as the British and US governments are now finding over the situation in Iraq. That is fundamental.

The National Security Coordination Secretariat is a work in progress. It is a start. We have to see how it goes on. And we may have to make modifications along the way. We may have to strengthen the powers and authority of the Permanent Secretary for National Security and Intelligence Coordination, and we will do so. But, I think, give it a try. The discussions which I have had with the Ministers, our Permanent Secretaries and other officials in our security agencies give me confidence that whatever be the difficulty, we will eventually get this coordinated intelligence and policy planning which is necessary to keep Singapore safe.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is clear that the new structure will focus on protecting Singapore from terrorist

Column: 234

attacks. But in view of the ways that terrorist groups are using hostage-taking of civilians as their weapon in terrorising nations in Iraq today and potentially beyond, will the new security structure consider the potential threat of such methods to Singaporeans overseas? How can Singaporeans be further prepared and protected from such threats when they are overseas?

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, while we welcome the setting up of the new coordinating agency, I think most Singaporeans will be keen to know what assurance can the DPM give to Singaporeans that the failings of the security agencies in the West, particularly in the United States, will not be repeated by this new coordinated agency.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the DPM has rightly pointed out that the fundamental responsibility of the Government is to protect the lives and property of Singaporeans.

Sir, I support the new integrated framework of national security structures. It is right to place it at the highest command of the nation, ie, the Prime Minister's Office. However, Sir, I think the most difficult part of policy formulation, in response to security threats, is to formulate the appropriate response. How much should be tightened to ensure that there is no loophole for terrorists to penetrate? But, Sir, on the other hand, are we sure that we are not over-reacting to some perceived threats which could result in an over-draw on our resources and also curtailing unnecessarily the freedom of our people?

Sir, I think with the coordinating agency having both the benefit of intelligence information and also in the process of formulating policies, I believe that the measures to ensure a safe Singapore would be better calibrated. I would like to know how and what benefits will be derived from this new set-

Column: 235

up in which we would have an appropriate response to security threats which is balanced and necessary, but does not curtail unnecessarily the freedom and movements of Singaporeans.

Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is very reassuring to hear from DPM that actually we are very serious in beefing up our national security and we are concerned with foreign terrorism as well as the dangers and risks posed, if incidents were to occur in Singapore.

The recent blackout incident - it is not terrorism-related, thank goodness for that - in terms of the public response, it seems that we are not that prepared, whether it is due to accident or other deliberate attempts. In this regard, the local connections of beefing up the psychological defence of our people are important, ie, how well connected are we with utilising to the maximum our extensive network of grassroots bodies and the CDCs in helping, firstly, to root out the possible causes for disquiet, unrest and the beginnings of recruitment for terrorist activities by foreign parties. But, more importantly, we need to have the resilience in tackling any crisis, and if any crisis were to occur, we have an orderly and systematic way of dealing with it, rather than, as we have heard earlier in the House, being not that prepared in such incidents.

Mr Ravindran: Sir, in a recent study by Rand Corporation, which studied the four intelligence agencies of UK , US, France and Australia , what came out clearly was that inter-agency rivalry was the cause of intelligence failure repeatedly whenever challenges face these agencies. So while I recognise that at the upper echelons of Government we would have coordination, my concern is how do we ensure that this rivalry at the operational level does not

Column: 236

affect the quality of intelligence that is ultimately given to the upper echelons. And could we consider, at the lower echelons - whether it is Police intelligence, SID, ISD or MFA - some form of cooperation or training whereby some of these officials could be brought together regularly so that they understand ultimately that the protection of their individual department's turf is not as important as national security and interest?

The second question that I would like to ask the DPM is whether having too many structures would in itself hamper quick decision making when it comes to a time when some quick decisions have to be made to meet some of these security challenges or emergencies that may arise.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me deal with the questions which have been raised by Members.

First, the point from Dr Maliki about hostage-taking in Iraq and the dangers to Singaporeans overseas. Sir, it is not possible for us to protect every Singaporean who works or lives overseas. Everyone has to take a sensible approach to his or her own security. Where it is necessary, like for example in Iraq, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has put out a travel advisory, advising Singaporeans against travelling to Iraq or living there, because the danger of being kidnapped by the militants in Iraq is very high. And we do not want to have a repetition of the Filipino situation in Singapore. We have to take sensible precautions. That is why, where necessary, we would advise Singaporeans about the dangers of travelling to different countries. But it is not possible, unless we prevent Singaporeans from going overseas, to make sure that no Singaporean would get into trouble. I would urge all Singaporeans, who go to places which may be dangerous, to at least let our embassy know of their

Column: 237

whereabouts and arrange to be contactable by the embassy, if and when there is trouble.

Mr Sin Boon Ann has asked whether we could be assured that the failures in intelligence, which have been so well publicised in the West, would not happen in Singapore. Sir, I cannot in all honesty give an absolute guarantee that it would not happen here. With the structure that I have outlined, and with the hard work of our people, I think that the danger is much less. At least, we have made a start, while other countries are still talking about how to coordinate their intelligence agencies. But there is no 100% fool-proof method. Intelligence is a delicate subject. Somebody has said that intelligence does mean connecting the dots from point A to point B. Intelligence means looking at the pattern of dots and being able to figure out a relevant structure. And that is very difficult because different people looking at the same group of dots would come to different conclusions. So it is never 100% sure. But if we can integrate our domestic and external intelligence, I think we will have a better chance of getting the right answers. But I cannot guarantee that we will be right all the time.

Mr Low Thia Khiang has brought up a very important point. How do we balance protection and security for Singapore and Singaporeans, without at the same time curtailing the freedom and the rights of our people? This is a question which is relevant not only to Singapore but to all countries, and we have to strike a balance here. We have to live with terrorism. We cannot allow terrorism to dictate our lives. We cannot allow the possibility of terrorist attacks to prevent us from going about our normal lives, doing our own work. So, there is a limit to how much protection or preventive measures that one could put in place. Otherwise, we would not even go out of our houses! It is a question of balance. When we harden Singapore, for example, by preventing customers of

Column: 238

restaurants and bars from parking in front of these establishments, we know that we are creating inconvenience and affecting the business of these bars and restaurants. But, if we do not do it, then the possibility of someone packing a car with explosives, parking in front of a bar or restaurant, blowing it up, causing hundreds of casualties, as had happened in Bali, is very real. So that is something we have to do. It causes inconveniences to people, but it is necessary.

There is no magic formula to decide what is necessary or what is not necessary. We have to have good sense. We have to depend on the intelligence of our officials and, where possible, we will only do what is absolutely necessary because it is not possible to keep Singapore completely safe, and to assure Singaporeans that there will never be a terrorist attack in Singapore. And this brings me to the point brought up by Prof. Ngiam.

Sir, we have to develop resilience in Singaporeans. The possibility of terrorist attacks will be here for a very long time and it could come in many fashions. Apart from a car-bomb going off in front of a hotel or a restaurant, one thing we are very worried about is people hijacking a ship with chemicals and crashing it against our port. And our port is located in a part of Singapore which is densely populated. That could cause hundreds, if not thousands, of casualties. These are dangers which we have to guard against. For the more extreme ones, we have to take all measures to make sure that they cannot occur. But, one day, some terrorists may get through. There may be a bomb attack. The thing to do, Sir, is to assure Singaporeans that even if there is a terrorist attack in Singapore, it is not the end of the world. Singapore will go on; we will overcome! But we must have the resilience to overcome these attacks.

Mr Ravindran brought out a very difficult point - how to ensure co

Column: 239

operation right down the line, not only at the top but among the officials. And that is very difficult. Sir, we must realise that for intelligence agencies, information is their life-blood. That is what they live for. And for an intelligence agency, whether in Singapore or overseas, to share intelligence is going against their very nature, and that is why it is so difficult to integrate and coordinate these agencies.

The example has to be set from the top, from the Heads of SID, ISD and all our other agencies, in order to show that we are prepared to work together. We have the Intelligence Coordinating Committee under this set-up, which comprises the four Permanent Secretaries, together with the Heads of SID, ISD and JCTC, and they would have to work out ways in order to make sure that this cooperation takes place. It would be difficult but it has to be done. All I can say to Members is that at least we are trying to make a start here. Other countries have not even come to the starting point.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, unlike Mr Low Thia Khiang, when it comes to safety and security, I feel that we should even be prepared to err on the conservative. I think we should put as much resources into making sure that our place and our citizens are safe. So while we pay tribute to our security agencies and personnel, I would like to even urge the Government to ensure that they are given the best of resources. It is also a question of spirit. I think we all know that it is also about the battle of the mind. So I am glad to see that the DPM and Coordinating Minister for Security and Defence has spoken about the need to build a better level of intellectual capital, for example, research into political Islam, violence and terrorism. I think we also need to ensure that we build up a greater sense of goodwill

Column: 240

among our people. There is a lot of misunderstanding about Islam, Muslims, terrorism and violence. So I think better research into political Islam, violence and terrorism would also bring about better understanding so that we could get the majority of Muslims who are moderate to be on our side to fight the evils in terrorism and violence.

And, finally, Sir, on the question about international and regional cooperation, I am glad to also hear the Coordinating Minister speak about threats in aviation and maritime. I would like to ask the DPM what is the level of cooperation that we are getting from our neighbours, particularly in the areas of maritime cooperation.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I would like to ask the Coordinating Minister whether with this new framework in mind, there would be more regular updates and reports from the new secretariat. Or would it continue to operate in a mode of absolute secrecy? Secondly, would the Internal Security Act be amended accordingly?

Dr Warren Lee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think Singaporeans would do well to heed the travel advisories given by the Government, especially when going to places where there are possible dangers. But hostage-taking might actually happen in any country when Singaporeans are abroad. What would be our Government's stand should situations like these occur?

Ms Olivia Lum Ooi Lin (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the business community, we certainly welcome this increased security measure. I would just want to find out from the Government if there are certain ways of looking how best to lessen the burden for the business community, because I am sure there will be more procedures like the security checks at the port, land, air and sea.

Column: 241

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have just one point of reflection for the Deputy Prime Minister. I was looking at his theme for 2004 - "It's not complete without you". Our discussion is that everyone has to play a part. The structures seem, if you would be patient with me, a little bit too defensive. I think the best way to go about security issues is to bring the citizenry in and, at the same time, not to throw the baby out with the bath-water. We have strong community bonding. My fear is that as we go on in this way, the alienation might set in if we are not careful. From that perspective, I would like to suggest that perhaps the theme could be "It's only complete with you", which is more positive and inclusive.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to talk a little bit about the point brought up by Mr Zainul because he has brought up an extremely important point, and that is the role of ideology and belief in fuelling terrorists.

Sir, one of the most troubling things about the extremists whom we arrested in December 2001 was that they were ordinary Singaporeans. They were not ideologues. They were people who had jobs and were educated, and yet they could be inspired by their erroneous beliefs. If we had not arrested them and disrupted their plot to carry out attacks, it would have killed not only Americans or foreigners, but their friends and perhaps even members of their families. How do you account for that?

This is a very deep issue. It involves religion and religion involves the deepest motivations of human beings. At the end of the day, the western world and governments cannot defeat radical Islamic terrorism. It can only be done by the Muslim community themselves, by moderate Muslims speaking out against the deviant teachings of Osama Bin Laden and his group, and point out that this is wrong.

Column: 242

Sir, Islam is a religion of peace. Ordinary Muslims do not go about trying to kill people. But there are groups out there who subscribe to this ideology and inspire other people to follow them, and that is why there were bombings in Madrid, Bali, and other attacks. It is a very long term problem. As Mr Zainul has rightly pointed out, one of the most important tasks of the National Security Coordination Centre is to build up this knowledge about ideology and belief, so that we can better understand the motivation of these terrorists. In that way, we could work with moderate Muslim leaders, and at least for our own people here, enable them to get a better understanding and to prevent Muslims from going the wrong way. Here, we would appreciate very much the help of Muslim Members of Parliament, grassroots leaders and mosque committees to work with us in order to get this message across.

Mr Steve Chia has asked whether we will make more regular reports, I suppose, to Parliament. Sir, intelligence is not something we talk about all the time. It is only when it is necessary. And defence is not a subject which is regularly brought up. We will do so when it is necessary.

We will also not amend the Internal Security Act. It is necessary for Singapore now. Without the ISA, we would not have been able to disrupt the plot in December 2001. Seven car bombs - each of them with three tonnes of ammonia nitrate - would have been detonated instantly against the US, British, Australian and other embassies, some of our military camps and MRT stations. Singapore will not recover from such an attack. So, to do away with the ISA would be an extreme act of foolishness.

Dr Warren Lee asked what would be the Singapore Government's stand if a hostage were to be taken and we are subject to the same situation that the

Column: 243

Philippine government is now facing. First of all, we must try and make sure that we never get into that situation. Once we get into that situation, it is very difficult to resolve the situation. But I just want to make one point that we cannot negotiate with terrorists. If we give in, and in the case of hostage-taking, it is a heart rending situation. We are dealing with people who cannot be persuaded by normal human interests. Let us not get into that situation first. But if we do, then the Singapore Government cannot and should never negotiate with terrorists. It will encourage more terrorists to take more of our people as hostages.

Ms Olivia Lum brought up the point about the burden on businesses. We do realise that because it is a fact of life today. It is unfortunate that it means more cost. We will try and lessen it as much as we can. Whenever we have to impose any measures, we try and discuss with the business community, but some measures are inevitable and I think businesses will have to bear with these measures at least for the time being.

Finally, Ms Braema has said that we should involve the community and she has got a tag line - it's only complete with you. I think it is not bad. We will think about it. But it is true that we have to involve everyone. National security in Singapore cannot be left to the Government alone. It involves every Singaporean. It involves our own safety. But with the support of Members of Parliament, grassroots leaders, the public and schools, I am confident that we can keep Singapore safe.