|
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.
Comment:
Open letter to Dr Abuza,
Please allow me to step in. ‘Courage’ is an emotive term, perhaps more suited to the playground than the world of intelligence, counter-terrorism and the state’s obvious needs to both protect its citizens while maintaining a recognizable narrative of its actions and intentions. I, for example, take no issue with the Singapore or any other governments’ desire to counter threats to both their people and their own often more partisan interests. This is what governments do, with some ultimately more answerable to their behaviour that others depending upon the structure and strength of their legislative and legal systems - and the ‘courage’ of individuals to challenge orthodoxy at the risk to career or even liberty. It is axiomatic and functional in this world, often necessarily so, that the ‘cloak of anonymity’ remains an essential tool for the agent, the interrogator, the informer and the executioner. Raising doubts over the behaviour and intention of the state and its organs with imperfect information will obviously carry risks. In the case of the piece we’re considering this could involve sanctions against a named individual who criticised the Singapore Government (and yourself) – no doubt a noble act - but also a foolish one. The ‘courage of one’s convictions’ has a fine ring to it in an open academic or intellectual setting – but in the area you choose to occupy it has another and far darker meaning. And this is where I believe the true criticism of this piece lies. You have established a reputation as an academic observer of terrorism in Southeast Asia. Your blog is most readable and packed with incident. However, it rarely disrupts the official version of events laid out by the governments and their agencies. Nothing wrong in this, except that as an academic I would expect you to offer a more balanced and forensic approach to the official history than you appear willing to do. As for raising the tattered slur of ‘conspiracy’ when challenged – this brings us back to the language of the playground rather than the serious business of trying to gauge and react to the threats we all face. Anyone can generate fear - but it takes ‘courage’ and persistence to nurture and defend reason.
Gavin Greenwood
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
Coal surge is unabated, raising environmental concerns
Say a person reads a lot on left-wing ideology from the internet and truly believes in socialism or communism. He starts dressing in Mao uniforms and carries “the little red book” in his pocket. He intends to go to China or Vietnam or Cuba to join the Communist party. Does he become a threat to Singapore?
A lot of people learn Arabic so that they can study the Quran in its purest form. Much like someone learns Hebrew, Aramic or Latin to study the Bible and the Torah in their purest form. so he studied the language just to communicate with Mujahidin fighters - as alleged in the article?
“Mujahidin fighters” - when the Soviets were occupying Afghanistan, the CIA worked with these “Mujahidin” fighters. in Afghanistan, “Mujahidin” was used to describe all fighters that were working towards removing an occupier.
Hmm - so he wants to join the Taleban and fight in Afghanistan. and that is a threat for the MHA in Singapore or for the US forces in Afghanistan?
Is he a member of JI or any terrorist group? its not explained in the article. In fact, the article says he doesnt belong to anything. he just wanted to fight with the Taleban - against who? - American forces.
Considering that the holding of “enemy combatants” in Guantanamo is deemed illegal by the US Supreme Court, while ISA is still legal in Singapore, i feel there’s more to this story that what’s being told to us.