Some in the local blogosphere have written about the recent ISA arrests & detentions without trial: Gerald has some questions and observations; Yadav here, here and here; Celluloid Reality(s) thoughts; mollymeek here and here, Martyn See’s they came first for the communists, chemgen’s exorcism of the ISA ghost.

I mentioned in my post that we can’t take things at face value, questions need to be asked and answered. Having said that, one must be living in an alternate universe if one thinks the government’s going to be forthcoming with real answers OR there’ll be a free & fair open trial OR the local media’s going to delve deeply into these arrests & detentions without trial OR the government will allow independent verifications, etc, etc. You get the picture. So is it pointless & hopeless to keep asking questions and highlight the fact that Singapore has had its own version of Guantanamo for decades? My answer is NO, its not hopeless & pointless.

Talking about Guantanamo, here’s what Colin Powell had to say recently in a June 10 interview on Meet The Press …….


The fog of ‘war on terror’ by Philip Bowring, International Herald Tribune, 19 June 2007

HONG KONG: On the face of it, the “war on terror” is going well in Southeast Asia. But in this murky world, intelligence and propaganda easily become interchangeable.

Meanwhile the much larger, bloodier problems of the Muslim separatist insurgency in southern Thailand and the Philippines continue.

The good news from Indonesia was the recent arrest of the alleged top two leaders of Jemaah Islamiyah. This was claimed to be a body blow to the organization, which is said to have been behind the Bali bombings in 2002 and the attacks on Western targets in Jakarta in 2003 and 2004.

Caution is needed, however. There are many Indonesians – including some in the government – who doubt that Jemaah Islamiyah is an organization with a structure, rather than a concept with which zealots are to varying degrees affiliated. Thus, while the arrest of dangerous individuals is a success, decapitating a headless movement would be of limited value.

In any event, there has not been a significant terrorist act against Western targets in Indonesia for two years, which could be variously attributed to good police work, public disgust at the violence, or the end of links between Islamic militants and those with different agendas.

National pride is a stronger force than religion in Indonesia. If anything gained sympathy for Jemaah Islamiyah it was not bombings, but the attempt to pin the Bali bombing on its supposed spiritual leader, Abdul Bakar Bashir. Though found guilty, his light sentence reflected widespread skepticism about his purported role.

Likewise the fact that another leading militant, known as Hambali, was whisked off to Guantánamo after being caught in Thailand in 2003, rather than being tried in Indonesia, rankles with Indonesians.

Sporadic violence will doubtless continue in Indonesia, including assassinations of Christians by Muslim zealots in regions of traditional communal friction. But it is seldom noted in the outside world that Indonesia’s worst communal violence in recent years has been the massacres of Muslim migrants in Borneo by non-Muslim indigenous groups.

The other purported anti-terror “success” last week came from Singapore, where the authorities announced that between November 2006 and April 2007, five alleged militants had been detained under the Internal Security Act .

Four were said to be members of Jemaah Islamiyah. The fifth, a Singaporean Malay law lecturer, was said to have been converted to radicalism via the Internet and to have been planning to go to Afghanistan via Pakistan. The five were apparently detained elsewhere before being “rendered” to Singapore.

The problem with Singapore’s claim is that it has a long history of Internal Security Act arrests – including journalists for well-known publications – accused of Marxist, “Euro-Communist” and other dubious conspiracies. Their release has sometimes been contingent on “confessions,” some televised.

There have been no recent public confessions, but the authorities did say last week that five Islamists detained previously had been released on June 1 after being “successfully rehabilitated.”

In the past, the government has shown an interest in playing up Communist threats. Now many local critics, as well as Malay neighbors, argue that Singapore maintains the sense of a Muslim threat in order to justify domestic oppression and to enhance Chinese solidarity.

The bottom line is that without open court appearances and a free media, one can only guess as to what extent terror cases are real, and to what extent they are a propaganda tool.

Singapore is not unique. In the West, agencies that combat terror are also often the ones that use misinformation either as a weapon against their opponents or in pursuit of some political objective.

As the Iraq war has shown, journalists with no independent means of confirming official assertions are easily led. The preference of supposedly law-abiding governments to lock up suspects rather than try them in open court merely thickens the fog of war.

Meanwhile the much bigger problem – that of Malay/Muslim southern Thailand – goes from bad to worse.

This is as much about ethnic and language differences as about religion, and has little to do with Jemaah Islamiyah or Al Qaeda. It has become a significant factor in Bangkok’s turbulent domestic politics and has the potential to create very serious problems with Malaysia.

Killings have been multiplying, yet there is no sign of a group with which Bangkok can negotiate, or of any willingness on the part of a traditionally centralizing Bangkok to confer autonomy on the region.

The danger of escalation is not so much that the conflict will spawn jihadists, but that the militants will extend their reach from the south to Bangkok or Phuket, just as the IRA once extended its reach from Belfast to London.


Don’t Count Your Conspiracies Before They Are Hatched, Asia Sentinel, 15 June 2007

There could be less than meets the eye to the latest terrorism arrests by Singaporean authorities

The latest wave of arrests under Singapore’s Internal Security Act, which allows detention in secret and without trial, has attracted scant news coverage and even less comment. That alone shows how the mere mention of the words “war on terror” and “Islamic extremism” can bring the media, regional and western alike, rushing to judgment based on official assertions and a generalized fear of Islam rather than proven facts.

It also demonstrates the ease with which Singapore continues to bask in western approval despite draconian security laws and its tight rein on the media. On June 9 Singapore revealed that five people, four allegedly associated with Jemaah Islamiyah, had been detained. These included a 28 year-old Singaporean Malay lecturer, Abdul Basheer Abdul Kader who was said to be a “homegrown” and “self-radicalized” jihadist not attached to JI.

Basheer had purchased an air ticket for Pakistan, where he allegedly planned to contact the militant group Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and join the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan, Singapore’s Home Affairs Ministry said in a statement. He was said to have traveled to an unidentified country in the Middle East last year to study Arabic, and by December “had decided to embark on `militant jihad’ immediately,” it said. Basheer was arrested in an unidentified Middle Eastern country and returned to Singapore.

The local media has assumed his guilt and taken to asking why and how it should be that a local law graduate who, according to the Straits Times, had been a singer in a rock band, was radicalized when he could have lived the “Singaporean dream.” Abdul Basheer, the stories said, partly raised his jihadi temperature by reading radical Islamic texts on the Internet. The Internet duly erupted with suspicious bloggers betting the authorities would use Abdul Basheer’s story as a pretext to seriously curtail access to cyberspace, where bloggers have been giving the government fits. There is no evidence yet of such a crackdown, however.

The reality is that unless presented in court and allowed to speak freely, no one will know what Abdul Basheer believes or what, if anything, he was planning to do. Even then, given Singapore’s history of show trials where detainees confess to various conspiracies as a condition of release, one will never quite know what is reality and what is staged for political effect.

But that does not stop so-called academic experts from restating the Singapore government line as though it were an obvious truth. Take Zachary Abuza, associate professor of political science at Simmons College in Boston, who is billed as “one of the leading scholars on terrorism in Southeast Asia,” author of one book and innumerable articles. Late last year, for example, he was in Australia at the invitation of the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council playing up Islamist threats in the region and beyond.

Abuza was quickly on the Singapore case, writing June 13 in Counterterrorism Blog, a Washington-based website of uncertain progeny which promotes the “war on terror”. He repeated the Singapore claims as established facts and proceeded to elaborate on them.

Apart from the case of Abdul Basheer, the Singapore announcement should have attracted attention for other reasons. First, the four alleged JI members were said to have left Singapore in 2001. It seems unlikely that they came back voluntarily, at least if they had anything to hide. So it looks as though they might have been “rendered” – the polite word for kidnap and forced deportation – to Singapore without any chance of a court hearing. Given that the US is one of the leading perpetrators of such illegalities, it is no wonder that the western media has refrained from looking into this case. It is unclear which country “rendered” Basheer but since it was said to be a Middle Eastern country, the implication is that it was an Arab one, not Pakistan.

Singapore also announced that five people earlier arrested as JI members had been released. The official line was that this showed, in Abuza’s words, Singapore’s “level of success with its rehabilitation program for JI members.” The government itself said that because of rehabilitation they “no longer posed a security threat.” Others might wonder whether these arrests, like others, have been made on scant evidence or simply to create a sense of fear to justify draconian security measures, maintain a high level of public concern about Islamists or keep the local Malay community in a defensive state.

While there is no doubt that Islamic terrorism is a reality in nearby parts of the world, as evidenced by the horrific bombings that have shaken Bali and murder and assassination in Southern Thailand and the Philippines, Singapore has a long record of using so-called threats to justify police state tactics. These latest arrests have been taken up by so-called terrorism experts to illustrate the “continued JI threat.” The post-9/11 world has spawned a group of such academics who have become minor celebrities in their own right as a result of their ability to advance opinions as facts and generally play up the Islamic threat, always eager to attach Al Qaeda and JI labels to local insurgencies such as in the southern Philippines and southern Thailand, both of which go back decades before Al Qaeda was invented.

The counter-terrorism industry is a large one and thrives on rumor and speculation as much as fact. It is also prone to being fed “intelligence” that serves a propaganda function. Singapore is a hive for such activities given its politics, local concerns about Malays and Islam, tame local media and a foreign press corps that knows enough to steer clear of critical coverage of Singapore’s political and social issues.

One example was in 2002 at the height of post 9/11 hysteria when even Malaysia was being accused of being an Al Qaeda base. Considerable international coverage was given to a huge story, supported by documents and other “evidence” in Singapore’s Straits Times, about an Indonesian terror network. Indonesia’s Tempo, a publication long noted for its independence and investigative credentials, looked at the allegations in detail and found that key names and places in the Straits Times story were utterly fictitious.

The line between fact and propaganda can never be identified unless the media is free and the courts are open. Given Singapore’s long record of abusing civil liberties, the Basheer case needs close examination by the outside world.