The Government will take firm action against anyone who threatens our society's peace and harmony
9 April 2007
Synopsis:
DPM Wong said, at the ISD promotion ceremony on 9 April, that given the high stakes of race and religious harmony, the Government will continue to take firm action against any individual who threatens the peace and harmony of our multi-religious society.
ISD's Intelligence Service Promotion Ceremony - Speech by Mr Wong Kan Seng, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, 9 April 2007
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The last few years have been especially challenging for intelligence and security agencies. Terrorism remains an immediate threat despite continued investigations, arrests and the foiling of plots worldwide. The terrorists have persisted with their agenda and hardly a week passes without reports of fresh plots being uncovered or attacks carried out. The quagmire in Iraq and other hotspots such as Afghanistan have bred and inspired not only new generations of terrorists, but new types of terrorist attacks.
2 Indeed, terrorists have adapted to counter-measures against them and innovated new methods to overcome our counter-measures. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in the threat to aviation security. From hijacking planes, terrorists switched to attacking passengers at airport terminals when governments introduced better on-flight security. They also tried to smuggle explosives onto aircraft via luggage. In the 911 attacks, terrorists dispensed with explosives and turned the planes themselves into flying bombs. After 911, they attempted to bypass airport and airplane security altogether by shooting down aircraft with missiles. Now, terrorists are back to smuggling explosives on board aircraft, but this time via liquid explosives in a bid to escape detection.
3 There are no boundaries to what the terrorists of today will not try. They are limited only by their imagination and skills. The use of radiological devices and chemical and biological agents against civilians, once thought to be limited to despotic state actors, is now a mainstream threat. Terrorists will constantly innovate and introduce new strategies to circumvent counter-terrorism measures. This is the logical conclusion of the action-reaction dynamic that I mentioned earlier.
4 Compounding these difficulties in anticipating and preventing attacks is the emergence of a new breed of terrorists - those who self-radicalise. These individuals are not directly recruited by terrorist groups, but obtain their ideology and skills from radical books as well as extremist websites. They are bound to other terrorists by a common ideology rather than organisationally. As such, they tend to be "home-grown", self-funded, and operate independently. In this way, they leave few footprints and tell-tale signs for intelligence agencies. They are difficult to detect, and typically surface on the security radar only when or just before they carry out their attacks.
5 Furthermore, the spread of radical ideology from which these individuals draw inspiration, and the socio-political factors which help give rise to and sustain radicalisation, are beyond the ability of intelligence and security agencies to address. The internet, for example, is replete with extremist websites that are radicalising a new generation of terrorists. But in countering the ideology, intelligence and security agencies have less of a role to play than the Muslim community itself.
6 Nor are the professional challenges facing intelligence and security agencies limited to the field of counter-terrorism. We are facing them on all fronts. In the area of counter-espionage, agencies now also engage in cyber-espionage. From the safety of remote locations, they can employ sophisticated technology such as trojans and spyware to obtain information. New technologies are also changing espionage tradecraft. For one, they are used to avoid detection and bypass traditional defences. The internet, in particular, has reduced the vulnerability of agents when they communicate with their handlers. Powerful encryption may be utilised to mask data. And what once took a spy days or weeks to communicate with his or her handler, now takes milliseconds.
7 All these challenges reflect the increasing difficulty of "connecting the dots", something immensely crucial to intelligence work. Surfacing the dots alone is not enough. We have to connect them to see the picture of the threat. Some analysts who investigated the 911 attacks attribute it to the US authorities not having made the connections between bits of intelligence to make a coherent picture; they did not "connect the dots".
8 One critical key to enhancing our ability to connect the dots is to de-compartmentalise, and share information. This may seem counter-intuitive to intelligence officers as compartmentalisation is used to prevent the leakage of sensitive information. However, in today's terrorism environment, we run the risk of repeating the intelligence failures of others by sharing minimally. The dots needed to complete the threat picture may be surfaced not only by ISD. It may come from the Police in the form of a criminal trace, from ICA because of suspicious attempts at entry into Singapore, from the Prisons Department or a CNB source. Other ISD Commands may also pick up indications not immediately apparent to be terrorism-related, but when connected to other dots, reveal a terrorism picture. For us to continue to keep Singapore safe, we have to share widely not only within ISD but also with the Home Team, and with other agencies in and outside Singapore. While ISD is already doing this, it is a point worth repeating.
9 The professional challenges to intelligence and security agencies are varied and numerous. I am pleased that ISD is meeting them head-on, applying yourselves with your customary dedication and thoroughness. I note that ISD has adopted a holistic, multi-faceted and long-term approach to stay ahead of these professional challenges. I am told that you are investing more heavily in training than before, and in developing new and innovative technical capabilities. I note also that you have changed your traditional approach, for example, by reaching out more to the public to share information on the threats Singapore faces, in order to make a partner of every Singaporean in our fight against terrorism. To cope with these new and emerging challenges, the Ministry had recently approved significant increases in resources and manpower for ISD. More resources will be given whenever required.
10 Policy-wise, the environment faced by intelligence and security agencies is also more challenging. In particular, as Singapore society develops further and opens up even more, where is the line that divides activities that are acceptable and not acceptable from the security perspective? At what point is an intelligence and security agency like ISD justified in taking security action to neutralise a threat? Take the example of individuals who believe in a radical religious ideology, but who, at the present moment, have not participated in any actual terror activity. Some people would argue that there is no basis for security action against them; that there should be freedom of beliefs.
11 We had seen this in the UK and Australia where radical preachers from other countries had incited and preached hatred to local believers but did not take part in terror activities themselves. Those who listened to the radical teachings also started off innocuously enough, simply imbibing the ideology without undertaking any terror activity. But the key point to note is that some eventually did act on their ideas. Take the example of some Muslims who attended London's Finsbury Mosque, which hosted several radical preachers. They include Zacarias Moussaoui, charged by the US in connection with the 9/11 attacks; Asif Hanif, who blew himself up at a bar in Tel Aviv; and British shoe bomber Richard Reid.
12 Also, there have been cases of Singaporeans who engaged in violence only outside Singapore. They feel they have not done anything wrong as they had not harmed Singapore per se. A few of our JI and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) detainees fall in this category. If a Singaporean engages in armed jihad only in a foreign land and not in Singapore, should we just turn a blind eye? What about those who do not participate in violence but provide financial or logistical support? For example, there are Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) sympathizers in Singapore and other countries.
13 I had previously made clear the Government's position on this: any Singaporean who participates in violence whether in Singapore or abroad, or gives support of any form for any terror-related activities whether local or abroad, is a security threat and will be dealt with. Those who engage in violence outside of Singapore have shown a propensity for violent action, and could, in time, turn against their fellow Singaporeans. Those who offer logistical support have the capacity to morph into attack support cells. Should the red line only be when an individual undertakes an actual terror activity? Or do we all have a responsibility towards the wider society to alert and investigate even those who have simply imbibed radical beliefs, well before they kill someone? I think the answer is clear.
14 What about individuals who while not radical in their theology, proselytise insensitively? Should we nip the problem in the bud, or on the grounds of freedom of religion, wait until their actions have roused religious tensions? What about Singaporeans, who in the name of freedom of expression, promote debates and make remarks that incite communal tensions? The case of the three bloggers taken to task for their inflammatory comments is one example. More worrisome, the phenomenon is not confined to the internet and anonymous ranting in blogs. There have been some artistic productions which have touched on issues of race and religion in a provocative and insensitive manner. Should we allow such productions in the name of artistic licence?
15 My view is: given the high stakes of race and religious harmony, inaction has dire consequences. The Government will continue to take firm action against any individual who threatens the peace and harmony of our multi-religious society. Our approach must be to resolve incidents while they are still small and manageable, and not wait for them to blow up into larger conflicts and misunderstandings.
16 We cannot hope to lay out comprehensively all possible scenarios and positions on them. They are many and some are unpredictable, or if predictable, may happen in the most unexpected time and place. Neither can the Government lay out for an intelligence agency all the areas of security concern that it ought to watch in a fluid and rapidly changing environment. Instead, we have to continue to trust the professionalism of the ISD officer to maintain a close eye on the security of Singapore. The Government recognises this critical role played by ISD officers, and hence, the need for officers of the highest integrity and ability. Furthermore, good intelligence officers are not developed overnight; it takes years of experience, honing of instincts, on-the-job learning, guidance, exposure and systematic development. We not only need to attract good officers to join the Department, but we need to persuade the officers to spend their entire career with us.
17 This applies to the entire Home Team, whose mission is to keep Singapore safe and secure. We need good officers not only in ISD, but also in the Ministry, in Police, SCDF, Prisons, ICA and CNB. We want officers who are motivated and committed, and who are driven by a sense of public duty and conviction of mission. But we also recognise that security and law enforcement work is demanding. Therefore, the Home Team, like the rest of the civil service, must offer a competitive remuneration package commensurate with the demands of the job, to reward, motivate and sustain the commitment of our officers. We must ensure that we retain good and experienced officers, and attract new ones in this tightening labour market. It is with this in mind - to continue to be able to attract and retain talent within all levels and all services of the civil service - that the Government has introduced this latest round of salary adjustments, announced earlier today. Your contributions, and those of every Home Team agency and officers, are key to ensuring Singapore's safety and security. Every dollar paid to our Home Team officers is well worth the money spent.
18 I have met many foreign businessmen, in Singapore and overseas. They often express to me their admiration for our safety and security. The Government has also received letters from visitors telling us how safe they felt when they were in Singapore. Many of you would have read the report in The Straits Times, 18 Feb 2007, about the Finnish national who set up a global software solutions business in Singapore. Mr Johan M. Karlstedt and his family moved to Singapore in 2005 after having lived many years in the United States. He wanted to provide a safer environment for his children and decided on Singapore after suggestions from friends. Although other American friends dissuaded them from coming here saying that they would lose their freedom, they made the decision to come and have stayed on, and even applied for permanent residency here. I would like to quote what Karlstedt said in response to their friends' comments about Singapore - "My wife told them that the greatest freedom is to be able to walk on the streets and not feel scared about it. It is also about not being harassed on the bus or the train." In another story published in a Russian financial journal called "SmartMoney" on 19 March 2007, Alexander Izerlis, director of Twise consulting company, who was born in the Soviet Union and grew up in the USA, was reported to have said this about Singapore: "It is very safe for kids to go to school on their own, or walk the streets even at night. ... And there are not so many places left on the planet, where prosperity and safety come hand in hand." Mr Izerlis came to Singapore on a 6-months business mission, and since then has been living here for 18 years.
19 Singaporeans, living in such a safe environment everyday, may not totally appreciate it. And indeed, safety and security are intangible qualities that one cannot easily appreciate. The only way to "feel" its value is to live in a place that is riddled with crime, drugs, and terrorist bombings. But to the discerning, and especially those who need it most - including investors and families who want a peaceful and wholesome place for their children - safety and security are indispensable. They are a crucial component of Singapore's international reputation as a valued place to invest, work and live. We must do everything to maintain this edge. This requires a highly competent and professional Home Team, and at the wider level, it means having a good Government with an equally good civil service to support it.
20 Finally, let me end by congratulating all the ISD officers who have been promoted this year. Your well-deserved promotions underline the recognition and appreciation of the Government for your contributions and commitment to the country. Well done.
