Hansard, 2003-01-22

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: FromTo Name(2003)(2003) Dr Ng Eng Hen9 Feb21 Feb Mr Lee Kuan Yew22 Jan- Mr Khaw Boon Wan31 Jan5 Feb ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how will Singapore's convention and exhibition centres be affected by the recently completed multi-million dollar convention and exhibition hall in Yogjakarta.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the S$10 million Jogja Expo Centre in Yogjakarta was opened last year. We understand that its main purpose is to provide a platform for small and medium-sized enterprises, especially vendors of arts and craft, to showcase and sell their products. Given the richness and diversity of Indonesian products in this area, such a centre is important in promoting commerce. As its primary focus is on domestic trade fairs and conventions, the Jogja Expo Centre will complement rather than compete with Singapore, which is targeting mainly international exhibitions and conventions.

Sir, it was reported in the newspapers on 9th December that Yogjakarta intends to establish some direct trade routes with the region. Because of its landlocked nature in the past, it had always been operating through Bali, Jakarta and Medan. One of the options is to establish direct trade routes with Singapore. In view of this, what is Singapore's position with regard to this intention on the part of Yogjakarta?

Mdm Ho is quite right about Yogjakarta's intention to boost its role in the region. They are trying to promote themselves as a cultural, educational and tourism hub to compete with Bali and other centres of attraction in Indonesia. We see this as complementary with us. The more links we have to the region, the better. It enhances our role and we also want the various centres of commerce in Indonesia to succeed. So, it is complementary.

It is also understood that Yogjakarta is known to be a nest for fundamental Islam in this part of the world. In view of its intention to establish direct trade links via Singapore, how would this impact our security and competition in Singapore?

We have trade links with all parts of the world. We have trade links with parts of the world which are politically stable as well as those that are politically complex. I do not think that we should be distracted from providing this connectivity where there is business to be done. If there is a case for security measures, when it comes to relationships with particular cities or countries, that would be undertaken in a sensible fashion. But it should not distract us from being able to conduct trade and boost commerce with all countries in the world.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong - 2. To ask the Minister for National Development whether the recent decision to upgrade Sennett Estate is based on the Estate's eligibility or is it a result of the promise made by the Prime Minister in the last General Election.

Question No. 2, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the decision to upgrade Sennett Estate is based on the eligibility of the estate as well as the Prime Minister's promise made at the last General Election. All private estates which apply for upgrading under the Estate Upgrading Programme will be ranked and selected based on factors such as the age and condition of the estate, the level of community bonding and the level of support for the programme. At the last General Election, the Prime Minister promised that Sennett Estate would be considered for upgrading if residents showed that they supported the programme offered by the PAP candidate for Potong Pasir. After the General Election, both candidates for Potong Pasir publicly affirmed that the majority of Sennett Estate residents had given their votes to the PAP.

Can the Minister of State please elaborate on the extent of upgrading that is going to be provided?

Sir, the details of the upgrading for Sennett Estate are still being worked out. I think it would be premature for me to make any definitive statement to that effect.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [20th January 2003], "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 Islamiyah 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 religious harmony.". - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Question again proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for accommodating me. I, too, would like to support the motion. Indeed, it is very disturbing to read the contents of the White Paper and how it would affect Singapore. So, I fully agree with the comments made by the Government to respond in a robust manner, and that we should indeed respond to a threat which will really threaten our national security. Much has been said by many speakers about how Singaporeans ought to respond to this threat by groups such as the JI. I do not wish to cover the same grounds because, by and large, I agree with all of the comments made. But I would like to make a few comments from just one single aspect, and that is from my perspective as an employer and as a corporate citizen. From all the speeches made, we can see that it is important to respond to the threat from two somewhat opposing ways. One is that we have to be extra-vigilant. We cannot allow potential threats to be diminished or left unchecked. But, on the other hand, we cannot allow ourselves to become overly cautious or overly suspicious about Muslims in general. Because this would then result in a great divide in our society, and our society is just not about Singapore alone. It is also about our Muslim neighbours. So, if we do not approach the issue in a way that it should be sensibly approached, we can provide a very fertile soil for extremists to exploit the situation and to make political capital out of a very sensitive situation just by simply alleging discrimination against a particular racial or religious group. As employers, we face these concerns. We are in a much more precarious situation compared to the man-in-the-street. Because when an individual decides to take an overly suspicious stance with his Muslim neighbour, we can probably stop at that. But this is not one man with tremendous irrational fears. But when employers and corporates behave that way or have that sort of feeling, then the consequences, indeed, can be magnified many times over, and it would then not be unreasonable for the Muslim community to think that they have been disenfranchised and marginalised, and for them to feel discouraged and depressed. Therefore, as an employer, I would like to call on fellow employers to make that special effort to ensure, and to be seen to be ensuring, a level playing field in terms of employment and treatment of our Muslim counterparts. When the JI paper was first presented, a number of employer organisations indeed came out to affirm the importance of abiding by the principles of meritocracy to ensure that job applicants are judged solely based on qualifications, experience and also on other objective measures. This is very important. Not only must we be doing this, we must also be seen to be doing this. So our employment processes and our business dealings with our Muslim counterparts must be utterly transparent. And this is even more important, given the fact that we have a somewhat high unemployment situation where we get hundreds of applicants per job, and it is so easy to cry foul and allege discrimination against a particular grouping. On a practical note, as employers, it would be very difficult for us to sniff out potential terrorists. From the profiles of the arrested JI members, it would appear that they are very ordinary folks. So, it would take no less than the ISD to identify them and to round them up. From a statistical point of view, we are also talking about small numbers against a very large group of Muslim citizens. Therefore, the statistical chance of letting a terrorist through our organisation, I think, is also quite low and remote. My point here is that, on the part of employers, there is no need to develop elaborate processes to sniff out so-called potential terrorists. But what is important for us to do, as I said earlier on, is to make that special effort to be fair, and to be seen to be fair, in our treatment of our Muslim employees. We must simply not let the situation get out of hand. Because if we do so, we might have to face up to demands for positive discrimination for groups, which feel they have been treated or discriminated against, for their particular problems to be specifically addressed. This is the case in the US when they have legislation specifically drawn up for minority groups and also for women. So, we do not want legislation to be enacted because it is cumbersome, and it is counter-productive. But, as employers, as corporate citizens, we have got to preserve that right against legislation and, therefore, we must do everything we can to be ever mindful that we are seen to be treating our Muslim counterparts as fairly as possible. Our Muslim community too, on their part, can also contribute to this mutual tolerance, respect and moderation, because we have a collective interest here. We have a collective interest about our well-being and our national security. Together, we have much to achieve, we can triumph. On that note, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I too rise in support of the motion moved by the Minister for Home Affairs. I would like, as many others before me have done, to also applaud the Ministry of Home Affairs for initiating and publishing the comprehensive, frank and penetrating White Paper on the historical existence and the clandestine activities of the Jemaah Islamiyah, leading to the arrest of several of their members and also highlighting the seriousness of the threat of terrorism Singapore faces. In particular, I am heartened by the fact that what initially appeared as scepticism among certain quarters in resurfacing the Jemaah Islamiyah issue by way of debating the published White Paper in this House has now turned into a positive and lively public debate. I believe it has created greater public awareness and stimulated intense discussion among Singaporeans of all races. What is important is the fact that Singaporeans are now more wary that the threat of terrorism is a serious matter and driven primarily by global forces beyond our shores. Discussing and debating this sensitive issue in such an open manner, both publicly and in this House, again sends the signal to the world that not only are we maturing as a society but also presents us the opportunity to desensitise this issue, which affects the Malay/Muslim community, and consolidates Singapore's fortification against terrorism. It helps focus it into a Singaporean problem rather than just that of a particular community. Since the uncovering of the JI's clandestine activities, the Government has taken many firm steps such as implementing defensive security measures at key installations and buildings, and tightening border controls. Recognising that terrorism world-wide is funded by money-laundering operations, Parliament has also given the mandate to criminalise terrorist funding and that this new law is coming into effect later this month. I believe this is integral in the wide range of initiatives being taken to combat terrorism. Policing and crippling the flow of funds to and from illegitimate sources is necessary to prevent another potential Bali-like incident where the terrorists feel pressured and were compelled to do something, because the funds were in their hands to conduct such extremist acts. In these aspects, we must remain at least one but, preferably, several steps ahead of the terrorists. But, Sir, owing to the distinctive religious dimension in today's terrorism, tackling this danger by means of just defensive security measures is not adequate. A more holistic dual track approach encompassing hard and soft measures is necessary to achieve overall effectiveness in stamping out terrorism. According to terrorism expert, Dr Bruce Hoffman, the defeating of the Al-Qaeda requires pinpointing the "inner logic" that "motivates terrorists and animates terrorism". The same holds true for the JI and other religiously-driven extremist and militant organisations. Since the JI issue afflicts the Muslim community, it is encouraging to note that the Malay/Muslim community, religious and mosque leaders have come out strongly in support of the White Paper and condemning the JI and its extremist agenda, and also acknowledging that such groups are a menace to our society. Many measures have also been proposed to check and prevent the emergence of such groups again in the future. Measures ranging from taking stock of the curriculum of Islamic religious education, registering qualified asatizahs, or religious teachers, to sanctioning foreign religious speakers have been mentioned by the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs yesterday, and also by several of my Malay colleagues in this House who have spoken earlier. These are either already implemented or are being seriously considered for implementation. However, Sir, while such measures are necessary and important, I believe that the long run measure should be to ensure that the Muslim community is equipped with a sound and rational knowledge of Islam as well as an appreciation of the other major religions in our country, in consideration of the multi-racial and multi-religious context within which we all live. A proper knowledge of Islam will help in preventing the infection of deviant ideas from taking root among Muslims here. Knowledge of other religions would help in enhancing the understanding and the preservation of harmony among the various racial groups. Two Sundays ago, my constituency's IRCC organised a visit to the various places of worship within the Pasir Ris area. We started with the Pentacost Methodist Church where, after a briefing of the history of the church and its activities, we were invited to join in the service. I was subsequently surprised in being called upon to address the congregation and was later told that I was the first Muslim to have done so. I told them that singing hymns and saying the Lord's prayer was nothing new to me, as I attended Presbyterian High, a missionary school during my secondary school days, and yet I am still very much a Muslim today. We all laughed through it. Last year, in May, while being in the United States, I had the opportunity to join in a community gathering near the hotel where I was put up. A pastor generously approached a black Muslim attendee to start the meeting with a prayer. He graciously replied by requesting the pastor to open with the Lord's prayer. After several enthusiastic echoes of "Amen" from all, the Muslim community leader lamented that this too was no different from the prayer of Muslims! It is apparent that communities, wherever they now live in the world, are generally making efforts to bridge the gaps of understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims, and especially so since after the 9/11 unfortunate event in 2001. Our Chinese majority non-Muslims, whether Buddhists, Christians or Taoists, should also reciprocate by making an effort to understand and know more about true Islam which is truly a religion of peace, but which has regrettably been subjected to extreme misinterpretations by irresponsible Muslims and non-Muslims to wholly advance their personal agenda. The Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob, again yesterday and also several other Malay colleagues of mine have all elaborated on the subject of Islam at length in their speeches in this House over the last two days. I would like to thank all my non-Muslim colleagues who have spoken so eloquently in support of the need for and the benefit of more public education on the various religious and cultural practices of the racial groups here and also the need to strengthen the links between our key ethnic groups. Only through such initiatives and concerted action of greater communication and involvement with each other could we achieve better understanding, which would lead to a stronger bond and trust between the major races in Singapore. We should capitalise on the current positive mood and push for attitudinal change among all Singaporeans, Muslims or non-Muslims, to take the issue of strengthening harmony and social integration more seriously than ever. In regard to the concern of potential discrimination at the workplace, it is heartening that there is a strong call among workers of different races and religions to uphold the principle of meritocracy. I also applaud the effort of NTUC, the Singapore National Employers' Federation and the Singapore Business Federation to jointly craft a 'code of responsible employment practices' which recommended, among others, to adopt consistent and objective selection criteria for employment and to avoid discriminatory rules in considering promotion and advancement opportunities. I would like to call upon employers of large and small companies, MNCs or local SMEs, as Mrs Fang Ai Lian has also done so a moment ago, to continue to adopt such fair and equal opportunity employment practices as we have done so all this while. Discriminating and sidelining Malay/Muslims in jobs if they could perform just as well as any other Singaporean would not augur well for our society. As Dr Yaacob, Dr Wang Kai Yuen and several others have pointed out, many Malay Singaporeans have been performing better and excelling in various fields. Unless equal opportunities - and I would like to stress here, equal opportunities on the basis of our time-tested meritocratic principles are created for them to progress alongside other Singaporeans - the community will be denied of role models to catalyse further progress. It is a known fact that societies and communities blessed with successful role models develop greater confidence to undertake more difficult challenges in every facet of life and tend to progress faster. When this happens, the entire society benefits from it. As the saying goes, success breeds success. On the other hand, it has to be borne in mind that a Malay community which is discriminated against and denied of opportunities, in spite of putting in best efforts, will degenerate and turn into a disgruntled community. Over time, if not managed, an underclass, in the sense of groups who have lost all hope and dropped out from Singapore's mainstream society, will emerge. I do not think I need to describe what such a scenario would mean to Singapore. I know the Government would never allow the emergence of an underclass in our country. But I think it is important that we bring this perspective in the context of the current discussion. Sir, in Dr Wang Kai Yuen's speech in this House yesterday, he noted that many Muslims could not reconcile themselves that the JI members are bad Muslims and were just carrying out their Muslim duties when they joined the JI organisation in defence of Islam. As a matter of further clarification, Sir, it is important to note that the JI members were well aware of what they were going into when they decided to be a part of the JI. As noted in the White Paper, they were willing participants and well immersed in extremist activities long before the September 11 incident and their subsequent arrests. Their plans to attack targets in Singapore go back to the mid-1990s and intensified after September 11, 2001. Considering also the above-average education that most of the JI detainees have, it is imperative for our Singaporean Muslims to know and are convinced that the JI members know exactly what they were getting into and the potential devastation they would have caused, should their plans be successfully executed. Both Muslims and non-Muslims would have been victims of their aggressive acts. In conclusion, Sir, while the White Paper focuses on the JI perpetrating terrorism under the cloak of the Islamic faith, it must also be borne in mind that terrorism is, by no means, bounded by religion. The Oklahama City bombing by Timothy McVeigh and the sarin gas attack in underground subways by the Aum cult in Japan are some terror acts that come to mind. As such, Singaporeans must always be on guard against not only religious but also other forms of extremism to help the Government and, for that matter, ourselves, as Singaporeans, to protect lives and property, and preserve the inter-ethnic harmony that we have painstakingly built since our independence. The conclusion of the White Paper is apt in reminding us that, given the nature of the terrorist threat we face today, preservation of harmony is paramount to ensuring Singapore's continued well-being.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for letting me speak. Today's debate is important because we are discussing a topic that has affected and will continue to affect the lives of all Singaporeans. For 30-odd years, we have enjoyed peace and prosperity. Then came September 11 which shook the whole world. To many Singaporeans, this tragedy opens the eyes of many to the dangers that could fall upon them. This fear was confirmed when we discovered a terrorist group and arrested 15 members of this radical Islamic group, Jemaah Islamiyah, in December 2001. They had very sinister motives, including bombings of foreign embassies and even local targets, like Yishun MRT Station. Then in August 2002, ISD arrested another 21 persons. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the message is very clear. We better get to understand and expose the terrorist network and the dangers they pose before our citizens get hurt or killed. Judging from the information being covered and linking this with other countries' findings, this is going to last a very, very long time. Therefore, this White Paper is timely. Because of the in-depth discussion on the terrorist operations and the people involved, this White Paper is a must read for all who cherish this place. It provides an important source of information and understanding for the average citizen, who must know, by now, how close we were to tragic happenings of the kind seen at Bali where more than 200 lives were lost. They will better appreciate why we took such swift actions against these anti-national elements. The truth of the matter is that the terrorists are at our doorsteps. We must do our utmost to prevent them from spreading their network, and this is where every citizen counts in our approach to block, frustrate, and to check their activities and movements. We must remember our security is under attack, and unless our citizens show their determination and resolve to protect what we have built up over the years, we may suffer severe damages to lives and targets. The White Paper showed clearly the targets these people are gunning - MRT stations, shopping and crowded places, places of worship, airports, and many soft targets - where civilian casualties will be high. They are not worried about killing Muslims, Christians, Hindus and foreigners. To them the ideology comes first. They want to create chaos - security, racial, religious, social and economic chaos - preventing investors to come, and disrupting and destroying the infrastructures we built. This is a national issue. And all races must band together and not let these anti-national elements break us apart. We have come this far through working together and enjoying the benefits of strong economic growth, good education, medical care, good housing, and security. We walk the streets safely. Do not let these be taken away. These are all worth fighting for, and dying for. We must not give these up easily by allowing these people to throw a spanner into our society and make our Chinese and Indian communities distrust the Malay community, just because they happen to embrace Islam. The media, television, radio and newspapers have put Muslims in the limelight because of events like September 11, and the carnage at Bali. Our Malay community, being Muslims, have been drawn into this. Moreover, of late, our Malays have become more pious and religious. Their dressing and social behaviour have also changed. There is nothing wrong in being pious. However, these changes and trends have made the Chinese and Indians colour their attitudes towards them. I do not think this is racial in nature. I blame this on human nature's association of thoughts, trends and events, that have made them feel this way. I think this attititudinal change happens everywhere. We have seen it happening in the United States, Australia, Britain, and even in Belgium in a place called Antwerp. But we must take swift action not to allow this to sow seeds of distrust. Over the years since independence, at the ground level, each community has contributed to the closely-knit society of multi-racial living and that probably helps a great deal during such trying times. However, we must never take things for granted. We must move forward and continue to work on this foundation, reinforcing the need to live together harmoniously, and giving assurances and words of comfort to each community. Thus, the many statements of support from the Malay community, especially outsiders, help to give strong signals of assurances to the non-Muslim communities, that the JI is the work of a minority of Muslims, and that the majority of Malays are against their actions and wrong-doings. Moderate Malay leaders must not let the extremist minority call the agenda. Non-Muslims watch the reactions of our Malay community towards this White Paper because non-Muslims want assurances, and investors also want assurances. Yesterday, my colleague, Ahmad Khalis, told this House that more than 127 Malay organisations have openly come out to support the Government's action and condemned the JI. This is the most significant stand and speaks well for the Malay leadership. So when I read the headline article on 14th January, "Let's All Back JI White Paper - Urges the leader of Khatijah Mosque", I see it as a good and clear signal. Other organisations, like Pergas, the Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association, have come out in support. The latest MUIS' statement on the correct practice of Muslims is most welcomed. This, coupled with my Malay parliamentary colleagues' press statement, condemning the JI and its extremist agenda, augurs well for all of us, especially the non-Muslims and those who want to invest here. Non-Muslims need these kinds of assurances, that the JI is an extreme group rejected by the community, and to dispel the misconception that Islam is the cause of the problem. In fact, my MP colleague, Ahmad Khalis, made a good and spirited speech, to respond to concerns expressed by some quarters, including views by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1984 and philosopher Rogers Scruton, that Islam does not mean peace. It is important that such views be challenged, so that Muslims and non-Muslims will not support these serious charges. The White Paper highlighted that many of the JI members learned their radical views from foreigners. So when the Straits Times on 17th January reported that some mosques regularly invited PAS politician-cum-religious leaders to preach at the mosques, I was shocked. PAS is a political party in Malaysia, advocating an Islamic state. They control two states in Malaysia - Trengganu and Kelantan - under Islamic rule. Their brand of Islam is too extreme. They are proposing hudud laws. I am against intolerance to other religions. In Singapore, we have separated politics and religion. So, how can we allow such religious teachers, with a strong political stand of creating an Islamic state in Malaysia, be allowed to preach and advise? I think the mosque leaders are too naive to believe that giving them a list of "do's and don'ts" would stop them from preaching their brand of Islam. Their very presence is a show of acceptance. This mixing of politics and religion, and sending the wrong signals to non-Muslims and Muslims, is very discomforting and not reassuring. You are giving them space and, worse still, credibility, to preach under the guise of piety and religion. The mosque leaders must be aware of the sensitivities of the other communities, especially in the light of the present circumstances. The vetting of foreign religious leaders, be they Muslims, Christians, Hindus, must be careful and discriminating. In a multi-racial and multi-religious society, the use of religion in festering dissent and discord is serious because religion evokes emotion and passion, and is beyond reasoning. We must avoid this at all costs. The past two days of debate brought into focus the question: are Malays being marginalised in a meritocratic society? The article "From the Gallery" by Tan Tarn How gives a broad coverage to this issue. A community that is marginalised because of race and religious beliefs works against the interest of a multi-racial, multi-religious society, and this is exactly what these extremist groups want to see it happen. So, if we, as leaders, and the press, push this line of argument that the Malays are marginalised, then we are playing into the hands of the JI. The Prime Minister had given figures on the improved performances of Malay students over the years. Dr Wang Kai Yuen restated it yesterday. Mr Yatiman Yusof and Mr Zainudin Nordin rejected Mr Shanmugam's call for some form of affirmative action for Malays. They do not want symbolic icons of success. They want to be at the top on their own merit. They have come this far on their own; so there is no need for special treatment. They do not want to devalue the Malay community's position in society. So, let us be on our guard - affirmative action is potentially divisive and has other undesirable consequences. We are under the watchful eyes of the JI. So, every possible avenue must be closed to them because JI comes in many guises and forms. We must not give them space to operate. Their teachings must be challenged, and their wrong-doings exposed. Singaporeans of all races who believe in peace and prosperity must call the agenda, and work out a strategy to stop this. This strategy involves the strengthening of our security at every level of our society. In other words, every citizen must be on their guard to report any suspicious activity or personnel to the authorities. On the part of the Chinese and Indians, attitudes of prejudice must give way to one of understanding the trauma that our Malays are going through. If we seek assurances from the Malays, we, especially the Chinese, must give them the assurances that there will be no job discrimination against Malays as this is happening in some firms. To do likewise, is to play into the hands of JI. Finally, we can overcome, if each and every Singaporean understands the threat posed by the JI and acts as a lookout post for our security men. This vital cooperation will make whoever wants to take on us, think twice, before trying. Sir, I support this White Paper.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank Dr Tan for his support of the White Paper and the support of the Malay/Muslim community. I would just like to clarify a point that he has raised, because I think it is useful to clarify in this House. The speakers that were invited by the mosques, go through the vetting process and they have to get clearance from MUIS. The speakers that were featured in the article were speakers who were invited by the mosques long before they became PAS members. They were invited in their own right as religious teachers. But having said that, Sir, I would just like to assure the House that we will step up our measures to ensure that whatever they do in Singapore, we will monitor very, very closely in terms of what they do and what they say. So far, we have not had any incidents, especially with this group of speakers, in terms of the views that they have presented. But, we have also in the past, rejected permission sought by some mosques to invite some of the foreign speakers. So, I would like to assure the House that the process is in place, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. During the last 12 months, I visited countries in Asia, Europe and the Americas on various assignments. Every time I went through an airport, the strict, and sometimes over-zealous security checks and stringent immigration procedures, served as a constant reminder to the threat of international terrorism, and the threat is real, and countries around the world are dealing with it. The arrest of the 15 JI members in December 2001 shocked us. And, this White Paper forced many of us to take cognisance that the threat is nearer to home than we would have otherwise thought. Our Government is taking this threat seriously and is dealing with it. And, now it is up to us Singaporeans to recognise the issues on hand, and to work together and to support our Government. Hon. Members have spoken eloquently in support of this motion. I would like to add two points for consideration. In addition to the recommendation in the White Paper on strengthening social cohesion, I would like to suggest that sports can play an important role in community bonding and nation building. Sports cut through barriers of race and religion. No matter what level of sports that you play or take part in, there is no discrimination against Muslims, non-Muslims, Chinese, Indians, or Malays. In sports, one set of rules applies to everyone, no matter what is the colour of your skin, hair, eyes or your beliefs. Through sports, we build friendship and strong bonding afterwards. During the Asian Games and the Commonwealth Games last year, Singaporeans, regardless of race and religion cheered our champions, whether it was Li Jiawei, our table tennis champion, or Abdul Halim bin Haron and Ibrahim Sihat, our weightlifting champions, or Remy Ong, our bowling champion. We cheered as one, and we cheered as one nation. Whenever our football team played, thousands of Singaporeans went to support them. When our team lost or played badly, we felt disappointed, frustrated and sometimes even angry when they were trounced. But when they triumphed or showed courage and real fighting spirit, we cheered as one and we felt proud as Singaporeans. Players or supporters - we are one - regardless of race and religion. Yesterday morning, I hosted a breakfast for my colleague from the International Olympic Committee, Mr Kip Keino. Mr Keino is a two-time Olympic gold medallist and a two-time Olympic silver medallist and he is a legendary runner from Kenya. Mr Keino reminded me that sports is a unifying force that unites a nation and promotes peace and harmony. Sir, the second point I would like to raise is one on employment of Singaporeans. A number of our hon. Members have touched on the code of responsible employment practices that was set up together by the Singapore Business Federation and NTUC. In the introduction of this code, it states, and I quote: `Singapore's society is multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious. Employers and employees must appreciate the diversity of the workforce and work together in harmony. Employers should treat all staff fairly and continue to recruit, based on skills, merits, experience, capability and relevant job experience.' Sir, I fully support this code of practices. My experience in running a group of companies with more than 2,000 employees has taught me that the best recruitment policy is one based on meritocracy. For companies to run efficiently and provide the best services or produce the best products, make a good return to the company and shareholders so that there will be job security for each and every employee, everyone in the company has a part to play and every employee has to be qualified and is the best person for the job. This is especially so in the increasing competitive environment, whether locally or internationally. Sound and viable companies provide jobs and security and contribute to social stability. We should, therefore, continue to uphold the principle of meritocracy and at the same time, there should not be, and we cannot allow, discriminatory practices against any employee that is based on race and religion. In Singapore's context, I believe that most of the employers are fair-minded and professional. For those few who practise discrimination, I think they should be educated and corrected. The Singapore Business Federation and NTUC will have a big role to play in this area. Sir, during this period of economic uncertainty, we should continue to concentrate on education, training and skill development, so that each and every Singaporean is employable and has a bright future. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on this very important matter facing us. Indeed, the issues before us are multi-faceted. On the one hand, we are facing a serious threat to our internal security. On the other hand, we are faced with the philosophical issue of religion and religiosity amidst rising global religious revivalism. Yet, on another front we are challenged to ensure that our social cohesion remains strong and intact. All these, with the background of increased globalisation and economic uncertainty, certainly not the best of times, but persevere we must, to ensure the continued survival of the generations to come. The challenge for speakers on the last day of such a debate is always to say what has not already been said - it is indeed a challenge. Much has been said about the damage that terrorist acts will do to any society. We have seen the devastation of the irresponsible acts of September 11 and October 12, not to mention the many more by Al-Qaeda and the JI. Sir, the extent of terrorist acts that have been linked to the JI has been documented in a report entitled, "Indonesia's Terrorist Network: How Jemaah Islamiyah Works", prepared by the International Crisis Group (ICG). For example, the report linked the Christmas Eve bombings of December 2000 to JI, noting the impressive planning and coordination work that took place in the attack. It reported that the network ensured that bombs were delivered on Christmas Eve 2000 to 38 churches or priests in 11 cities. Nineteen people were killed and some 120 wounded. These are very serious attacks planned by people who have no qualms about taking the lives of innocent people. These are the people whom we are talking about today. Singaporeans cannot take the threat lightly. Sir, we must also recognise that although the ISD has succeeded in thwarting the plans of the JI on Singapore targets, we can see the subsequent costs that we have to pay to-date. More manpower and resources have to be deployed at all our Checkpoints and important installations like Jurong Island. The Minister for Defence has already said that defence spending for this year will be increased. These are important and necessary to prevent a catastrophe that will cost us not only millions of dollars but possibly lives. The White Paper is very explicit in its discussion on the implications of the threat of terrorism on our social cohesion. I have, as have many others in this House, spoken on this issue. In the past year, much had already been done. There is heightened awareness of the need to understand and appreciate each other's beliefs and practices. There has been a visible increase in the number of visitors to places of worship like mosques, churches and temples, in the name of improving mutual understanding and tolerance. Several Members, however, have also highlighted that strengthening our social cohesion needs more than organised visits to these places of worship. Indeed, often times, these visits are organised by and for grassroots leaders and activists who, many of us know, are often already the so-called converted. In any case, how many more mosques, churches or temples are there to visit? Sir, while the relevant Ministries and security agencies will continue to be vigilant in ensuring Singapore's security, and the grassroots organisations actively organise programmes to facilitate cross-cultural understanding, the question we have to ask ourselves is: what is our role as individual members of the society in ensuring our own security? We are not expected to be vigilant or to track every suspected character that lives in our midst. But we can ensure that we actively invest in our social relationships such that we are comfortable and confident of the level of trust that we have with each other, with the people who live around us. For all those Singaporeans out there who are not activists or have not participated in grassroots activities, what is your role in ensuring and strengthening our social bonds? More generally, have we invested sufficiently in our social relationships with the people around us? At the most micro level, do we know our neighbours well enough? These questions had been raised yesterday. How many neighbours who live in the same block of an HDB flat does the average Singaporean know? What about within the same RC zone? Why are these questions important? Our housing policy ensures that we live among the different ethnic groups. The level of trust that we have of the people around us will ensure that our social cohesion remains strong. It will also act as a deterrence for individuals to get involved in acts that will hurt the people that are close and mean something to them. Sir, the psychological profile of the JI members, as reported in the White Paper, noted that they had high level of loneliness. Perhaps they may also not be close to their extended network, let alone their neighbours. The point I am making, Sir, is that social networking is an active process that requires effort and time. We need to reflect on the value we place on such relationships and act upon it. We have often heard the common response of the lack of time as a reason for not participating in grassroots-organised activities. Many will also say they do not even have time to interact with their neighbours. If this is true, we have to ask ourselves: where will this lead us to in the long run? If there is one thing that we can learn from this JI episode it is that we can no longer take our social relationships for granted. We need to consciously find time and invest in these relationships. What is also more critical is the inter-ethnic relations between neighbours. What is the current level of inter-ethnic relations in our neighbourhoods? The housing policy has been in place for many years now. But anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that relationship is, at best, superficial. The grassroots organisations can do their part in organising activities that will facilitate interaction. But if we do not embrace the value, we will continue having the same converted individuals attend those functions. Perhaps, grassroots organisations should consider reducing the geographical focus of their activities to a smaller number of blocks of flats to encourage more micro-level interaction between neighbours. This is not to micro-manage relationships between neighbours but to facilitate their interaction, knowing how critical such relationships are in ensuring a continued level of trust amongst residents. We have heard anecdotal incidences of people not wanting to be in the same lift with members of other ethnic groups following the news of the JI arrests last year. Such unwanted incidences can be avoided if neighbours really know and trust one another. Cumulatively, it will ensure a higher level of trust between people. Sir, the White Paper is not only a call for Singaporeans to wake up to the impending danger that is lurking outside our doorsteps. It is also a gentle reminder for us to reflect within ourselves some of the fundamental values that we uphold. Are we willing to leave our comfort zones and be part of the larger network? The bottom-line goes back to Singaporeans. Do they feel compelled enough to answer this call or are they comfortably living within the four walls of their own homes? The White Paper also raises the important, though rather abstract, issue of religion and religiosity. It is indeed complex - for one it is supposed to be a private and individual affair - but at the same time, it has implications for a larger community. Indeed, we used to think of religion as being part of a private space of the individual and have left it to that space. We separate religion from the affairs of the state precisely because we know the complications that will arise if we did otherwise, especially in a multi-religious society like ours. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the complexity of religion cannot be sufficiently underscored. In any religion, there exist fundamental doctrines, often times, manifested in various forms. Varying behavioural manifestations of followers are used as indicators of variations in the interpretations of these doctrines. No religious community is spared from dealing with such complexities. The complexity is acknowledged by social scientists who study religiosity. As a psychological construct, these scientists agree that religiosity is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. They view religiosity as more than just a behavioural manifestation of the religion. It includes both intrinsic and extrinsic commitments to the religion. It is thus even more difficult for those outside any community to comprehend that very complexity. Today, the Muslim community is put on the spotlight and its members have struggled to explain variations that exist within the community itself. Some have said that the doctrines are there and it is the individual's personal choice to follow for at the end of the day, it is between him and his Creator, while others believe it is their duty to ensure that those who steer away are brought back to the right path. With so many different tenets and doctrines, the fundamental question that arises is what makes one a good Muslim. For example, what makes a wife beater, who piously prays five times a day but works irregularly and does not support the family financially, more or less of a Muslim, compared to a non-tudung wearing single mother who works hard and struggles to provide food on the table for her children? Who is to pass judgment? Muslims and non-Muslims should refrain from making judgments about individuals, based on whatever criteria. Perceptions are inevitably made from such judgment and, if not checked, these perceptions may translate into prejudices and prejudiced behaviours. To facilitate interactions, especially cross-culturally, we should remain non-judgmental and learn to accept the person who he or she is. Sir, the spiritual vacuum experienced by members of the JI has been highlighted as one of the keys to their vulnerability. Exploited to the extreme, they are told that to be a good Muslim and to guarantee their afterlife, they have to subscribe to jihad, even if it means hurting and sacrificing fellow Muslims. The White Paper thus calls for a self-regulating mechanism to ensure that the likes of the JI members are not exploited by religious teachers, like Ibrahim Maidin. Sir, indeed, some scholars have argued that the rise of global religious revivalism is due to a spiritual vacuum created due to modernisation and complex urban living. There is a more fundamental issue to this, ie, the need for a set of guidelines that perhaps allows religious teachers to help Muslims know what are the parameters of behaviours and expressions of religious piety, within the context of a multi-racial society, that gives them the assurance that they are indeed being good Muslims, and practising the religion well, as much as they are being good citizens. Sir, the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs yesterday noted that Muslims are duty-bound to contribute towards the development of a good society. Indeed, this is part of what being a good Muslim entails. The goal for each individual should be the betterment of society as a whole. I am confident that every religion, Islam included, espouses towards this. Sir, in relation to the call for a self-regulating mechanism, I am heartened that the Muslim community has taken the recommendation positively. Last night, a group of Muslim residents, including a couple of grassroots leaders, came to see me to say that they would like to register the religious classes that are being organised in their neighbourhood. I welcome their voluntary gesture and directed them to the mosque in the area which is in the process of compiling a list of Muslim residents to refer to. Sir, there has been much call for the moderates in the Muslim community to speak out and denounce terrorism. Implicit is for Muslims to exercise moderation and not allow extreme elements to take over the community's agenda. Sir, Islam is about moderation. The Friday sermon of 17th January this year, just last Friday, delivered in mosques all over Singapore clearly emphasised this point. The Imam quoted the Prophet as saying that: 'This religion (Islam) is a simple religion. And should anyone make it rigid (by going to the extremes) the religion will eventually overcome him.' He went on to explain: 'Indeed to propel our community forward, we have to be wise and tactful. We must avoid coming near to any of the two extremes. At one end, there are those who neglect religious duties, no prayers, no fasting, no good moral character, and the list goes on. On the other hand, there are those who exaggerate the teachings of Islam and promote chaos and disturbances wherever they are. They isolate themselves, have their own rigid interpretations, and plan for the demise of their own community.' In the same sermon, the Imam also highlighted the role of the Muslim community, and I quote: 'The community of Islam must be exemplary. It must set the highest standards of performance and be the reference point for others. It must avoid excesses and extravagances and static rigidity and extremism. To strike a middle course of action, to be steadfast and consistent, to know what to accept and what to reject, to have principles and at the same time remain adaptable is probably the hardest test of the human character and social viability.' Sir, indeed, Islam is about moderation and the Muslim community is committed to upholding this value steadfastly. This is also clearly stated in the statement by MUIS on the White Paper. MUIS urges all mosques, Muslim organisations and the Muslim public to uphold the true teachings of Islam and its values of moderation, tolerance and mutual respect. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as we grapple with the challenge of religious revivalism, we are confronted with the issue of common spaces. Where are these common spaces? What are the guidelines towards behaviour in these common spaces? Essentially, common spaces should minimise differences and maximise commonalties, that is, a space where members share values, aspirations and motivations, with the betterment of the group, community or society as a whole, as the desired outcome. These are universal values that should be accepted by every religion. Thus, Muslims should feel comfortable that being part of the common space does not make them any less Muslim. MUIS must take the lead in helping Muslims in this regard. There will always be room for private spaces but we cannot remain in the private space alone. We need to be part of the common space in a multi-racial and religious context, like Singapore. Sir, as much as the White Paper has unequivocally emphasised that the issue is about terrorism and not Islam, many in the community still feel that they are in the spotlight yet again. While the Malay MPs and community leaders continue to motivate the community to move on and move forward, the process can be further facilitated by members of the other communities. Life should go on and should not be affected by this incident. The other communities should also assure the Muslim community that they are still as comfortable with the Muslims as before. If there should be any questions or doubts that arise, they should be dealt with immediately and not be allowed to brew. The Malay MPs have met members of the Chinese media and clan associations and are heartened to note their continued understanding and support for the Muslim community. The channels of communication are open at the community level through the IRCC or direct to the authorities, like MUIS, should any clarification be needed about the Muslim community. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we started 2002 with the news of the arrest of the first batch of JI operatives. We have started 2003 debating on what we should do to ensure that our society continues to function amidst these serious threats and challenges. I wonder how we will start 2004. But however it may be, I am confident that we will weather this storm together and come out of it as a more cohesive and resilient society. Sir, on that note, I support the motion.

Sir, in the last two days, several MPs and the Minister for Home Affairs have spoken of the need to break the silence on the JI and the threat of terrorism. The fervent encouragement to draw out both Muslims and non-Muslims to engage in open dialogues to discuss their fears, suspicions and aspirations is a necessary phase in the healing process. As a diverse people, our multi-racial society can only progress to the next phase, if we can bring down walls and dare to bare our all to one another. The public denouncement of the sins of the arrested JI members and the united stand taken by the Muslim community and our Muslim political leadership in condemning the terrorist activities are reassuring to the non-Muslims. Sir, as a multi-racial society, we have thrived on diversity and learned to create unity in diversity through mutual respect, tolerance and trust. Such evergreen and enduring values have guided the different racial groups through many crises and for as long as they are preserved as our living code, I believe they will continue to guide us. Even in Indonesia, we saw the constant denial that the island states have terrorists in their midst, right up to the Bali bombings. During the regime of Suharto, although more stringent measures were taken against Islamic extremists, there was also a lid put to avoid mentioning names. With the timely release of the White Paper, three daunting questions before us are: would democratic political decisions be sufficient to stamp out such clandestine terrorist activities? Should we go for military response and how will the social fabric be affected? To answer these questions, we have to be clear that the war against the terrorists and JI is a war fought by all Singaporeans. We have to be aware of the threat terrorism poses, the need to be vigilant and how as a people we must work through our differences to foster closer ties so as to prevent any cleavage in our social fabric caused by those with ulterior motives. First, I would like to touch on the threat of terrorism and JI. Sir, terrorism has reared its ugly head in Southeast Asia and Singapore has not been spared as two groups of JI terrorists were arrested and detained. As recounted by some MPs before, these groups had plotted to bomb not only US interests in Singapore but also strategic local sites in a bid to foment discord between Singapore and Malaysia. When the JI activities were first made known in December 2001, Singaporeans had a rude awakening. The manifestations of their terror activities and the discovery that these cells exist in our midst sent a chill down the spines of many Singaporeans. Suddenly our stable business environment and lucrative tourist industry are affected. The obvious concern is the fear of a bomb explosion that could destabilise our infrastructure, and the terrorists would have achieved its goal of creating chaos and animosity in yet another icon of the world. This fear continues to haunt many Singaporeans, as witnessed by their public expressions that they avoid individuals draped entirely in robes and with slits for the eyes. Also, places frequented by Caucasians, such as Holland Village and Boat Quay, are pegged danger areas by these fearful Singaporeans. Such emotions in Singaporeans will impact the social interaction amongst the different racial groups. Singaporeans need to be educated more on Islam and the practices of the Muslims. Psychology of the human mind is such that when one knows little, one fears a lot; and that can be overcome through knowledge. The truth of the matter is that both Muslims and non-Muslims are living in fear and suspicion of one another. The Muslim fraternity feels that they are under scrutiny, that they are being blocked out of many opportunities in getting a job, or a promotion. On the other hand, the non-Muslims who have been constantly reminded to be more sensitive of their Muslim friends, feel that they have already accommodated much and that it is time for the Muslims to reciprocate. It is timely that we commence a series of PR campaigns to inform, create awareness and educate the public on how to deal with crisis, tense relationship and forge common goals and identity. The very nature of the JI terrorists is to break society. In response, all Singaporeans need to be closer and stronger as fellow brothers and sisters. This social unity is vital. Although we can have all the legislation and security measures in place, cohesion and unity cannot be guaranteed. All it takes is a small incident and another similar strife at Ayodhya, India, where Hindus and Muslims were formerly living peacefully together, could erupt in Singapore. Second, I would like to touch on the need to be prepared and be vigilant at all times. The globalisation of terrorist activities meant that Singapore is exposed to a number of terrorist groups like the JI, Red Army and Tamil Tigers. Singaporeans must be aware that there are many, among us, who can be exploited by such groups. We need to know who is who in the list as the numbers grow so that we can be vigilant. Not too long ago, Business Times carried an article on the courageous Balinese reaction to the bomb blasts. I think the actions of Bambang, a Balinese of Indian descent and who is also a Hindu married to a Muslim, is a fine example for non-Muslim Singaporeans. In an era where nothing is certain, we need to be ready and have a prepared mindset for the worst so that when the worst does occur, we know what to do. Foremost in the minds of many Singaporeans is the question: why is it that it has taken the Government so long to present the facts to the public? And, more importantly, why was there no earlier detection and action taken to nip the problem in the bud at the earliest sign of suspicion? Were we not playing with fire when we did nothing to put off the sparks when they were first detected? Have we given a fair trial? Sir, here, it is necessary to explain and reinforce to the public that we could not apply the same criminal proceedings to solve the terrorism issue; otherwise, we would never be able to comb through the whole JI network in Singapore and disbanded two cells. The action taken in the ultimate has to be swift, ie, detention without trial to terminate mischief; as otherwise, we could not have broken these terrorists up before they let off the truck bombs. We have to understand that Singapore is a high value target despite all measures taken. Third, I would like to touch on the way forward for us. Whilst the JI network in Singapore may seemingly be disrupted by the arrests of the JI terrorists and may not pose an imminent threat, a larger looming concern is that the insidious terrorist activities can actually undermine the inter-ethnic peace and harmony that Singaporeans have built up over the years. It is important to reinforce the point raised in the White Paper - that the two groups arrested represent only a small, isolated group of the larger Muslim population. Their "sins" against fellow Singaporeans have no bearing on the other Muslims. Sir, I condemn the terrorist activities as "sins" because they were meant to be senselessly and viciously directed at the innocent and peace-loving Singaporeans. Whilst we had witnessed the joyous outbursts of some individual Muslims on the 9/11 incident, in the case of the JI arrests, the JI activities had elicited a different response from the Muslim community. The Muslim community has openly condemned the JI agenda. Such a stand taken by the Muslim community has given much reassurance to the other racial groups of the allegiance of our Muslim brothers and sisters to Singapore as a nation and fellow Singaporeans. The Muslim community as a whole will have to move forward to play the red alert and trigger the signal whenever they come across any deviant character. As a community, the Muslims must inculcate the resilience to bring to task the deviant Muslims. Sir, we know that this microscopic scrutiny of the extremists is causing awkwardness and uneasiness among the Muslims. Efforts have been made to showcase inter-racial and inter-religious harmony. I was told that for many on the ground, they all seem over-zealous and artificial. Scratch the surface layer a bit deeper and we will find tension. The way to dissipate such emotions is to encourage more dialogues and sharing among the different racial and religious groups. I am encouraged by the sharing of one Malay professional lady, in one recent feedback session, and she spoke openly about her feelings and asked: what is it that the non-Muslims would like her to clarify for them? She explained the values and virtues of the Muslim faith and dispelled the notions that all clad-up Muslims are suspects. She commented that the increased religiosity among Singaporean Muslims is not an attempt at isolation. In fact, it is about being a better Muslim and that meant being a better person and, in turn, a better citizen. She also spoke of being more warmly treated as a Singaporean while in Laos than when she is in Singapore. To quote her, "Here, I am seen as a Malay Muslim girl first, and Singaporean as secondary". My initial response to her observation was that all visitors always feel like kings and queens because of the special efforts that the host would accord to them. We know that familiarity breeds contempt, and once you are used to one another, you do away with formalities and niceties. Reflecting on her comment further, I asked myself if there is a need to revisit our often take-for-granted attitude. When there is a patch in a relationship to be mended, it is good to be aware of the need to re-establish these formalities and niceties, as such efforts reassure the desire to want to work out positive outcomes. So, perhaps, social groupings should begin some refresher programmes on inter-relationship skills. Perhaps the grassroots organisations should start a Conversation series in small groupings of not more than 30, to encourage more sharing among the multi-racial groupings. We should also dispel suspicion and avoid criticism when we observe differences in practices. For example, we should not see it as wrong if a Muslim woman does not shake hands with her male colleague. She is behaving in a proper manner as prescribed by her faith. We should not be suspicious but be respectful of that. In fact, I was told that conservative Indian ladies too do not shake hands with men. We should take heart that we are far-removed from really knowing the practices of other races and religions. Nonetheless, we must have a ready mindset to embrace and learn from the experiences of others. For example, the Sikh communities in the US had stepped forward to talk about their faith in the light of racial attacks after 9/11. All Singaporeans could similarly do more of this. This bottom-up approach is the responsibility at the individual level and must be the way to move forward, complementing the top-down approach as seen in the setting-up of IRCCs. Sir, many Singaporeans, including Members of this Chamber, feel that the way to move ahead is not to have more control and legislation, but to prevent economic and social disenfranchisement among some minorities, which might give rise to more would-be terrorists. I was told that many Malay taxi drivers have been relating the sad fate of fellow Muslims finding a job, due to racial discrimination. On this, I would like to share that statistics from the Ministry of Manpower showed a "more or less" equal distribution of the unemployed among the Malays, Chinese and Indians. Very often, it is a question of competencies, not race, that mattered in job selection. However, we have to note that the perception of disenfranchisement, which might be contrary to reality, takes on a dose of reality itself when it is repeated enough. And there will always be people who wish to exploit this gap between perception and reality. We need to remind employers to be more open and transparent in their selection and hiring practices. Next, I would like to touch on managing inter-racial harmony at the workplace and creating more awareness in the institutions of learning on the White Paper. Sir, the White Paper is silent on how relationship at the workplace ought to be managed. Whilst I understand that employers and union leaders are being briefed on the White Paper, I am concerned that the operational people-managers and informal leaders at the workplace to-date have not received proper guidance on how to deal with sensitivities concerning our multi-racial workforce. The casual approach towards the terrorist threat adopted at work so far has resulted in many at the workplace taking the situation lightly. This is clearly demonstrated by the few reported incidents of bomb hoax at workplace. Another disturbing observation is that some individuals at the workplace are taking political advantage of the situation for their short-term agenda. We are hearing more allegations of racial discrimination in recruitment and promotion exercises. This gets picked up and, rightly or wrongly, the sympathies go to the aggrieved party. Sir, here is where we want both employers and union leaders to play their part to remind informal leaders at workplace to be quick to dispel such allusions. Sir, I speak this from a personal experience. Not too long ago, a colleague at work informed me of an incident with the mother of a young Muslim recruit for the job of an apprentice. She came to the workplace to sign the Training bond as a guarantor for her son. She informed the executive attending to her, that her son would not be able to perform work every Friday from 12 noon to 3 pm because of prayers. In response, my colleague advised that the job could not accommodate a long break of three hours and that it would be good for her son to rethink about the job. Sir, we have to acknowledge that the workplace is common ground for all. It is sometimes difficult for employers to draw a line between accommodating employees' requirements and getting the job done. This is not about marginalising the minority race, but the need to preserve common identity in a common place. Sir, it is important for the community at large to know that selection and promotion are guided by criteria, and if applicants do not qualify, it is because they have not met with the criteria and not because of racial discrimination. Like my colleagues before me, I would like to comment on my hon. colleague, Mr Shanmugam's statement about "a small measure of affirmative action" to enable more Malays to occupy important posts. I am happy to note that, in this instance, our system has been doing that for the latter, starting from the highest office in Singapore. We had a Malay President in Yusof Ishak. There are also other top positions in both the private and Government sectors held by Malays. In support of Dr Tan Cheng Bock's rejection of the suggestion of marginalisation of Muslims, I would like to point out here that everything else being equal, it is important that, in the final analysis, when picking a candidate for a position, it goes beyond considerations of meritocracy. In reality, factors that align the affinity of the candidate to the job and the people around are just as important. Sir, in connection with promoting inter-racial harmony at the workplace, I would like to propose for a series of awareness programmes on how to deal with the sensitivities of the multi-racial workforce at the workplace. In fact, to begin with, I am proposing to incorporate a Certificate and Diploma module on inter-racial relationship in Human Resource and Industrial Relations programmes so that people-managers, union leaders and, subsequently, the workforce, will acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to deal with one another more sensitively. Further, in order to make these programmes accessible, I hope that the Skills Development Fund (SDF) would consider giving these programmes the necessary funding so that companies will be more ready to send their employees. More importantly, we want to bring home the point that 9/11 and the subsequent arrests of the JI members have certainly changed our modus operandi at work. And multi-racial relationship management must become the core curriculum at the workplace. Besides the workplace, we should also look at the schools, JCs and tertiary institutions. The terrorist issue and threat of the JI are here to stay. The 3Gs will be living with this threat and all the related sensitivities. This is a special group that we must garner to understand and appreciate what the JI and terrorist threats are all about. I would urge for schools to initiate discussion on the White Paper. It needs special study in the GP curriculum. With a good appreciation of the complexities of the matter, our 3Gs would be better prepared to deal with the issues that threaten us. Finally, going forward. We should no longer be moaning over whose responsibility it is to drive the unity of Singaporeans, but rather as Singaporeans, how and what should we do to ensure the strengthening of our social fabric. Now that we have boldly and clearly clarified that Malay/Muslims are not marginalised, we must make every effort to erase such notions and talks. Efforts must come from both Muslims and non-Muslims. We could learn from the constant mutual assurances between the Muslims and non-Muslims in the UK. We should also heed the words of US President George Bush, "Islam is a religion we accept, but not Al-Qaeda". And, Sir, similarly, we should also heed these words. If an individual is not promoted to a higher position, or selected for a post, it is because he did not meet the criteria needed for the post, and not because of race. On this note, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng. Sir, the White Paper clearly sets out the history and the nature of the threat of terrorism in Singapore. It also recommends bold initiatives to deal with this threat. Many of us have assumed that terrorist activities in Singapore only started in 2001, after the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and that it has ended with the recent arrests of the JI activists. The White Paper shows us otherwise. Terrorism in Singapore dates back a long way and it is far from being eliminated. It is a deep-rooted problem. It threatens the stability and security of our society. It needs to be addressed thoroughly and seriously. On the other extreme, there are also people who are paranoid and see terrorists everywhere. There is no need to over-react and, as a result, strain inter-relations. We need to have a balanced approach. The White Paper is, therefore, a timely document that provides some guidelines for dealing with this issue. It also reminds us that terrorism is a problem for all Singaporeans. Government's efforts alone will not be enough. We must work together to deal with it as a united people I agree with the three key recommendations set out in the paper, ie, to enhance security measures, to police the threat of terrorism and to strengthen social cohesion and religious harmony. These are the three pillars of our counter-terrorism strategy. I would like to share some of my views and suggestions in this respect. Firstly, I agree with Mdm Ho Geok Choo that we must be prepared. We must prepare our people for the eventuality of an actual terrorist attack in Singapore. Sir, I am fully confident of the effectiveness of our security measures and the capability of our security agencies to manage and minimise the terrorist risks. However, we must not and cannot afford to be complacent. We must recognise that there is a possibility, remote as it may be, that a terrorist incident could actually happen in Singapore. As documents released recently by the Ministry of Home Affairs have shown, had we not caught the JI terrorists in time, a major incident could have taken place. If and when this happens, the psychological impact on our people could far outstrip the physical impact of the incident. More importantly, it could create a rift among Singaporeans of different races and religions. It could threaten the cohesiveness of our society. The multi-racial and multi-religious society we have so painstakingly built over the last 30 years could easily be destroyed overnight. If this happens, the terrorists would have achieved their objective of destabilising the country. Therefore, I feel that other than enhancing physical security measures, we need to also prepare our people psychologically in the event that an incident does happen. To do this, I would like to urge the Ministry of Home Affairs to consider a public education programme aimed at informing our people what they ought to do and what they ought not to do in such eventualities. This is no different from our effort to prepare our people in Total Defence. The recent bomb hoax at Holland Village is an example of how an ill-informed public may be used to propagate damaging rumours that may cause panic among Singaporeans. Therefore, being well-informed is a crucial element of our preparedness against terrorist attacks. For example, we must constantly remind our people that should an incident happen, they should not panic and should not jump to conclusions prematurely. We should also remind them not to aid in propagating unverified rumours or to inform the authorities when they become aware of such rumours. Of course, this needs to be done carefully so as not to create unnecessary fear among our people. The key is to let them know what to expect and what is expected of them. This way, they would be psychologically prepared and would not be caught by surprise. The impact of any incident can then be better managed. Secondly, we need to strengthen the resilience of our people, especially the younger generation, against distorted teachings. The White Paper showed that among those arrested, all, except two, are of average or above average intelligence. They are not ignorant or destitute. They are fully aware of their actions and deadly serious about their missions. What disturbs me most is the ability of the terrorist network to attract intelligent people and sometimes respectable members of our society to join in their cause. Investigations showed that one of the recruitment techniques used by the JI network is through seemingly innocent religious classes. These classes have far-reaching influence on the impressionable minds of our younger Singaporeans. The teachers abuse the trust and betray the confidence of their students. Then they bind their recruits with threats of infidelity if they choose to leave their organisation. Such techniques are frightfully similar to those used by secret societies in the past. The long-term solution to terrorist threats is to find a way to disrupt their recruitment process. I believe that we must deal with the root of the issue. We must strengthen Singaporeans' resilience against recruitment efforts by the terrorist network and we must do so right from the start, among our younger Singaporeans. For this reason, I would like to suggest that we revise and update our school curriculum, for example, in the National Education Programme, to include issues relating to terrorism. Young Singaporeans must be taught the values of social cohesion and religious harmony. We must inculcate in them the basic values of mutual respect, mutual tolerance and mutual acceptance, regardless of race and religion. These values must be transformed from academic knowledge into a way of life for all Singaporeans. This way, when our younger Singaporeans come across teachings that do not conform to these basic values, they would then be able to question the basis of such teachings rather than being taken in by their emotional appeal. If they have been taught from young that it is wrong to take away lives, they will then have strong moral courage to resist the call to be part of a terrorist plan to kill innocent people. Therefore, I would like to urge the Ministry to work closely with the Ministry of Education to review our National Education Programme for this purpose. Thirdly, to strengthen religious harmony and foster greater mutual understanding and acceptance, we need to create more channels for communication among the various ethnic and religious groups. We cannot deny that many differences do exist among different religious and ethnic groups. To do so is being unrealistic. These differences are a result of our cultural heritage, our life experiences and our religious beliefs. Even within the same religious group, there are differences. I am a Christian. There are many different denominations within the Christian faith, with varying practices. Similarly, among the Chinese, there are also many different dialect groups - Teochew, Hokkien, Cantonese - some do not even talk to one another. However, on the other hand, there exist many similarities among these different groups. We share the same land, we share the same community, we share the same consequences if terrorism is allowed to grow in Singapore. Many of the potential conflicts stem from the lack of understanding of each other. Such misunderstanding, if not resolved, may eventually lead to distrust and eventually even animosity. To avoid this, we must acknowledge and accept the differences, but emphasise and build on the similarities. The setting up of the Inter-Racial Confidence Circles is a good start. Perhaps it would be useful for the Ministry of Community Development and Sports to consider organising more regular dialogues among the various groups at the national level. For example, we could consider an annual forum where leaders from various religious groups, as well as grassroots organisations, can gather to share their views and concerns. There could be open sessions as well as closed-door sessions. This will provide a platform for sensitive issues to be discussed and differences to be resolved in an orderly manner. It will also provide an opportunity for greater interaction among the leaders and, hopefully, this will lead to greater understanding and tolerance. This forum can also be used as a platform for the religious leaders to proclaim statements on their stand with regard to religious harmony. Such proclamation will serve as a constant reminder and a useful guide for the respective believers and followers. This forum can also become a symbol, an icon, of our commitment to social cohesion and racial harmony. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as we debate in this House how to tackle the threat of terrorism, we must not forget to recognise the good work put in by our security agencies. The Home Team, in particular, must be applauded for the effective intelligence they managed to gather and the swift and decisive actions that followed. It is through their relentless efforts that our homes are safe from the terrorists and we can all sleep soundly at night. On this note, Sir, I support the motion.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I support the motion to endorse the recommendations proposed in the White Paper. Let me take this very serious topic in a more light-hearted manner. There were two families staying in the same block of flats and they did not interact between themselves, not even greeting each other when they met in the lift. One night, they were laughing, cheering and even held each other's hands in jubilation. Why? Because the Brazil soccer team, which they both supported, had won the World Cup. So, this common interest of theirs had bridged the gap between them. Now, let me touch on Part V of the White Paper on strengthening social cohesion and religious harmony. Over the years, the Government has been promoting religious harmony and as a result our people are living in harmony here in Singapore. In order to enhance our mutual understanding, we have to first learn and understand the differences among us, so that we would be able to accommodate, tolerate and live with each other. However, we are a multi-racial and multi-religious society. In order to enhance our cohesion, I think it is more important that we recognise our similarities than to emphasise our differences. There may be some competition between a hawker who sells apples and another who sells oranges, although the fruits they sell are quite different. But when someone advocates that it is better to eat vegetables than to eat fruits, I am sure the two fruit sellers will take a common stand and be united to argue otherwise. Apart from knowing and understanding the activities of the terrorists, I think we should use our common interest to enhance social cohesion. In our society, which is multi-racial and multi-religious, undoubtedly, we need to examine the differences between the various ethnic groups. But let us not forget that we have many things in common too! For example, we are all peace-loving people, we love our family, we love our country and, at the same time, we like to celebrate the various festivals. Whether you are a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Muslim, you would pay a lot of attention to our respective ethnic and religious festivals. Just as we enjoy our reunion dinner on Chinese New Year's Eve, our fellow citizens of the other ethnic groups enjoy their respective festive celebration. However, the joy and happiness of these festivals are not confined to our own community only. I am sure you have this experience. During Hari Raya or Deepavali, you would have your Malay and Indian neighbours knocking at your door and offering you their traditional delicious kuehs and tid-bits. During the Chinese New Year festivities, they may also turn up at your flat to wish you Happy New Year and enjoy your new year goodies. The Christmas, Deepavali, Hari Raya and Chinese New Year light-ups are enjoyed by everyone, not just the individual community. I am sure all of us enjoy the festive mood. So, let us all live happily and peacefully together. There are differences between us, but let us look more at our similarities and less at our differences. Sir, I would like to suggest that we periodically and systematically create this kind of festive mood for our people. This is particularly useful in our multi-racial society. A foreign friend once told me that racial harmony in Singapore is not bad. But there seems to be a lack of communication and exchanges among the different cultures. Everyone seems to be living in their own quarters with no feeling for other communities. He may be a bit exaggerating, but it is true that quite a lot of our people are not showing interest and concern for the happenings in the other communities. We should try and encourage our people to seek and get into the common space among us. When we are faced with a cultural conflict, the more common points that we have discovered among us, the easier it would be to iron out the differences among us. So, if more opportunities are created for us to celebrate the various festivals together, it would be useful for us to resolve the differences, if any. We should learn to appreciate our counterparts in the other communities for their contributions to our nation building, and make it a point to show such appreciation. There could be more exchanges among the various cultures through various campaigns, get-togethers and even through the media. This will go a long way to enhance our social cohesion. Now, allow me to present my views on some of the other points in the White Paper. The organisation, planning and scheming of the terrorists right at our doorstep are real and serious. We should also have a long-term plan to counter such threat to our security. These terrorist activities, if successful, would impact not only our present generation, but also our future generations. So, we should bring this White Paper to the schools and include its contents to the school curriculum, according to the educational levels of the students. We could simplify the contents, even use cartoons or comics to teach our students, so that they would also know and understand the activities of the terrorists. One day, if we were to encounter an unfortunate incident in Singapore, then our people would be psychologically prepared to face them, and would have better understanding and tolerance among our various ethnic groups. Our Muslim compatriots in Singapore are just as peace loving as we are. We know that. Whether we are Malay, Indian or Chinese, we should trust one another and be united to fight our foreign intruders together. Otherwise, we would fall into the hands of our foreign intruders. Let us settle all our differences through our similarities and common space. Let us be united and build up our common aspirations, common wishes to settle the differences in our society so that we can have better mutual tolerance, thereby enhancing our social cohesion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after more than 30 speeches, I have no doubt that many in this House may inadvertently feel that they are suffering from an overdose of the debate on terrorism. Many of the statements made would, by now, have a familiar ring tone. Nonetheless, even at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I feel compelled to lend my voice to this chorus. Since as MP of a constituency, I feel duty-bound to voice my opinion and the views I have gathered from the residents of the community I represent on a subject of such critical importance. I therefore beg for your indulgence, Sir, and Members of this House as I give my response to the White Paper. Sir, the motion speaks of countering the terrorist threat in a three-fold manner, like by enhancing security measures, by policing the spread of terrorism and extremist ideology, and by strengthening our social cohesion and religious harmony. Like my parliamentary colleagues who have spoken before me, let me say, at the outset, that I support this motion because the consequences of terrorism, if left unchecked, are grave and unimaginable. Sir, I applaud the Government for having the moral courage to table this motion to debate the White Paper, even though it may once again put our Malay/Muslim community under the spotlight. It is unfortunate, but not unprecedented. Recall the anguish felt among the Chinese community at the chauvinistic tactics employed by Tang Liang Hong, two elections ago. Each time, issues like the Chinese Language, or Nantah, are brought up in its various forms, a raw nerve is struck. I, therefore, like many of my parliamentary colleagues before me, urge all Malay/Muslim Singaporeans to view this debate positively. It is not intended to highlight the Malay/Muslim community's deficiencies, but to air the issues in a calm and rational manner so that, collectively, we may find solutions to the problems that confront us all. It is a mark of our nation's maturity that we can openly and honestly discuss issues like these. Sir, indeed, over the last two days, my parliamentary colleagues have freely brought and frankly discussed numerous awkward and sensitive issues relating to race and religion. This attests to our confidence with the majority of Singaporeans with regard to such potentially divisive issues. It also reflects our beliefs in the strengths of our inter-racial ties which have been painstakingly and deliberately cultivated over the last three decades. It is an affirmation that the majority of Singaporeans believe in our multi-racial and multi-religious compact and that they are moderate in their practice of religion, not just Muslims, but Buddhists, Taoists, Christians, Hindus and others. As the Economist in its November-December 2002 issue aptly commented: 'Secrecy and centralisation are useful watchwords in a conventional war .. But if the war against terrorism is going to last for years, the governments need to mobilise their people. The way to do that is to treat them as adults and give them as much information as possible without compromising sources of intelligence - even if this does cause a few sleepless nights.' Let me now offer my own perspectives on the responses we need to take to combat the terrorist threat. I suggest a four-pronged approach to JI, three of which echo what the White Paper proposes. The conceptual framework is that of a series of enlarging concentric circles, with widening application and impact. These are the four P's of pre-emption of terrorist strikes; propagation of Islamic truth; progression of the Malay/Muslim community; and promotion of inter-ethnic and religious harmony. Firstly, pre-emption of terrorist strikes. At the centre of the series of circles are the hard security measures we need to take to prevent and pre-empt terrorist strikes. We need to improve the security of key installations and targets. We need to tighten border controls. We need to choke off funds meant for financing terrorism. We need to have superior intelligence and surveillance against the "super-terrorism" we are facing. I am comforted that the Government has stated unequivocally in the White Paper that it has taken these steps and more to harden Singapore against terrorist infiltration and attacks. I urge the Government not to let up on these security measures as they give the population and investors alike assurance that Singapore is clearly among the safest destination in the region. Indeed, the international community working in Singapore viewed the arrests as evidence of an effective security apparatus that gives investors confidence in our country's ability to thwart all manner of threats. There have been murmurings about the long jams at the Tuas and Woodland Checkpoints. But I strongly feel, and I gather that many other Singaporeans also, that the strict border checks should not be relaxed. The resulting inconvenience is but a small price to pay for our social, economic and political security. However, our homeland security lattice, no matter how sophisticated, can only do so much, because the Al-Qaeda threat is global, and therefore the front against terrorism must likewise be global. Our neighbours, with some of whom we have occasional tiffs, are similarly victims of terrorist attacks. Sir, I hope that Southeast Asia nations will be able to put aside our differences to confront the common enemy that can wreak havoc on our very existence. Secondly, propagation of Islamic truth. It has been said that the war on terrorism is 95% ideological and only 5% military. There is a Chinese proverb that says, zhan cao chu gen. We need to remove the sinister roots from which the terrorist tree grows and cut off the supply of new recruits. We need a counter-propaganda, not of half-truth and twisted teachings that sowed the seeds of JI. We need to debunk the myth that "true" Islam equals fundamentalist and militant Islam. This will not be easy. Because, Islam, like Christianity, is by nature monotheistic, preaching one way to salvation. Fiery itinerant Islamic teachers and mullahs, if unchallenged and unfettered, may not be teaching the correct interpretation of their faith and, indeed, even mislead people into believing that jihad and martyrdom is the one-way ticket to heaven. Some influential western scholars, like Samuel Huntington, have taken a pessimistic view that Islamic teaching has no room for pluralism. Instead, Muslim communalism will grow and lead to inter-religious strife and eventual Balkanization, that is, disintegration of the nation state along religio-ethnic lines. That conception cannot and should not remain unchallenged by Muslims in Singapore. Otherwise, we risk the return to the dark days of communal strife and the undoing of what our founding fathers have fought so hard to accomplish - the establishment of a multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore. Therefore, the Malay/Muslim community must affirm the moderate non-sectarian nature of Islam and the nation-building role. I am pleased to note that, in recent days, shortly after the release of the JI White Paper, many religious leaders and organisations from the Muslim community have come forward to state their stand, and argue for self-governance, and to take the necessary steps to ensure that itinerant teachers and self-styled mullahs will not be permitted to propagate heretical teaching and poison the minds of our younger Muslims. I think this proactive, firm and united stand has done much to allay any anxieties and prejudices the non-Muslim community may have. Third, progression of the Malay/Muslim community. Sir, the White Paper has noted that the JI network in Singapore comprised generally people with average, or above average, intelligence, and who cannot be classified as being socially disadvantaged. Yet, one cannot deny that the risk of being influenced by the JI movement could be greater among the weaker members of the Malay/Muslim community. The large issue facing us then is how to bring further economic and social progress to this community, in particular, to the weaker members of the community, so that they do not feel left behind in this age of rapid gobalisation and technological change and, therefore, become easier prey to deviant teachers. Again, I am keenly aware of the sensitivity faced when we raise this question among our Muslim friends. My parliamentary colleague, Mr Shanmugam, has spoken of this on Monday. The reality is that each race has its share of members who lag behind their compatriots, economically and socially. Sir, I am not suggesting affirmative action. So, in this sense, I am not even mildly heretical. In fact, I do not think that affirmative action is necessary at all. This is because, as the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs has noted, the Malay community in Singapore has, in many ways, made its mark in our society. It has also been making great strides in closing any gap with the other communities. For this reason, I think what is needed is for self-help groups, like Mendaki, to press on with their efforts, especially to raise the educational attainments and quality of life of the weaker members of the Malay/Muslim community, thus further uplifting and achieving higher overall averages for the community. Other self-help groups, such as CDAC and SINDA, could also work together with Mendaki towards this end, as an added, tangible sign of solidarity and unity among the different races. Fourth, promoting social and ethnic-religious harmony. At the largest circumference of the strategic framework for tackling JI is the need to enhance social harmony among the various ethnic and religious groups. Sir, the need to do so is really unquestionable. Social and religious harmony are seeds that must be sown in all areas of public life in Singapore - schools, workplaces and communities. The national schools, in particular, are undoubtedly the crucible for multi-racial living. We must teach our children to be colour blind, and celebrate harmony amidst diversity. More activities designed to promote racial and religious harmony should be planned. For instance, there could be more designated projects related to our cultural and religious diversity where students of different races are required to work together in groups. We should encourage and create opportunities for students of different races to interact and make friends with each other from as young an age as possible; in fact, from pre-school. There is a need to watch out for the unwitting formation of enclaves in schools because groups of students may unconsciously clique and engage each other in a particular language, and thus could alienate students of other races, who may otherwise feel out of place. It is natural for people of the same colour to congregate. We do so overseas to gain a measure of security and for purposes of identification. But, doing so in Singapore, could also raise social barriers and hamper more meaningful inter-racial interaction. Certain sports, like basketball or sepak takraw, tend to attract participation from specific groups in schools. Without restricting choice, schools must make every effort to complement such propensities for specific groups to coalesce around certain sports and games, with other activities that have wider appeal to all races. At the community level, grassroots organisations and grassroots leaders must likewise be committed to the multi-racial ideal in planning activities. It is commonly observed that Malays are under represented in grassroots organisations. The non-Malay community, especially the Chinese majority, should redouble their efforts to reach out to the Malay community and make them feel comfortable. They would have to get rid of any residual practices and prejudices they may have, which may hinder Malays from joining the grassroots organisations and cause them to concentrate almost exclusively on their own mosque-based activities. For instance, though the incidence of this today could be considerably lower than before, I do hear of complaints from the non-Chinese community that some grassroots organisations still conduct their meetings in Chinese, without formally offering translations in the other languages. There are also complaints that some non-Muslim grassroots leaders still remain insensitive to the Muslim's food requirements at functions. These perceived prejudices, if unchecked, could drive a wedge between the Malay/Muslim community, already forced into an uncomfortable period of introspection by the JI events and the other races, especially the Chinese. Having Singaporeans of different races and religion dining together and visiting each other's places of worship is definitely a good start to greater understanding of the different races and religion. In fact, when I was in Florida last December, I read, with some satisfaction in the local newspaper, that in an attempt to imbue greater understanding about Americans of different religions, the Muslim organisations in Florida are initiating visits to different places of worship for Americans of all creed. However, attempts to foster greater understanding and confidence among the different races and religions clearly cannot stop at this rather symbolic and significant superficial level. Confidence and trust in a person can only be built when we get to know each other personally, and the best way to achieve this is through working with each other. Hence, at the community level, we must encourage more residents of different races and religions to come forward to work on community projects together. For instance, in my constituency, Malay and non-Malay grassroots leaders admitted that they have come to understand each other much better after working closely together on a New Year Charity Lunch project for needy residents of all races, where they personally had to prepare lunch for the residents. There were some tensions in the first year when they organised the lunch, as the non-Muslims did not fully appreciate the requirements of the Muslims regarding food preparation and cooking. They felt that the Muslims were just being difficult and uncompromising. This year, which is the second time they are organising the lunch, the tension has dissipated, through greater understanding and a give-and-take attitude, and now there is even greater rapport and camaraderie as the different races work together for the common good. At the individual level, I urge all Singaporeans to extend common courtesies to one another, especially to those of other races, since as a friend of mine quipped, "Inadvertently, in a multi-racial society like ours, each of us is an ambassador of our own race." For instance, HDB flat dwellers, and even office workers, who are in the lift together, can smile and greet each other, instead of staring at the floor, at the lift floor indicator, or worse of all, at the ceiling, which seems to be the lift habit of most Singaporeans. Sir, I support the Code of Religious Harmony proposed by the Prime Minister as a means to highlight to all religious leaders that peace on earth is not incompatible with peace in heaven. Also, the IRCC and Harmony Circles will need to continue their efforts to promote understanding and inter-religious or, as some one has termed, inter-civilisational dialogue. Such dialogue can be expanded from the conventional ones of philosophy, history, culture and those in the humanities, to other aspects of human life, since Islam is concerned with the complete way of life. In this way, a truly meaningful common action agenda among the various ethnic and religious groups can be formulated and carried out in the near future for the betterment of all men, women and children, regardless of the colour of their skin or the religious headgear they wear. Sir, in conclusion, as the Minister for Home Affairs has noted, some Singaporeans have questioned if we should keep revisiting this subject; if it might not be better to go about our daily lives, rather than inevitably putting the spotlight on the Malay/Muslim community each time we talk about September 11, the JI arrests and terrorism. They fear that this incessant reminder could instead become negative reinforcement. However, as noted by Rohan Gunaratna, the battle against terrorism has barely just begun. It is likely to be a persistent flu bug that is hard to shake off and, if left alone to fester, could turn fatal. Racial and religious harmony, as history and experience have shown, is not a natural phenomenon. It is far more natural for people of the same skin colour, creed and language, to feel an affinity and thus congregate. Hence, we must continue to actively promote social harmony among Singaporeans of different races and religions in response to the terrorist challenge. As this multi-religious and multi-ethnic ecosystem we currently have is man-made, as with many things in Singapore, we must continue to maintain and improve upon it. Left alone unattended, it will start to fall apart if extremism starts to gnaw at its seams. The reminders and debate about the dangers of allowing extremist elements into our shores must therefore continue, as the battle is far from over and is likely to be long and arduous. Furthermore, this battle is not a conventional battle. It is a contest over ideologies, over values and, therefore, must be fought on all fronts and would require the help of every Singaporean - yellow, brown, black or white. On this note, Sir, I wholeheartedly support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Singapore prides itself as an open economy. It is an undeniable fact that we have prospered and got to where we are today by being a very open society. Our people had moved ahead by assimilating the best of the East and the West. Whether it is the best practices in business, technology, the arts or fashion, we have learned, absorbed, and localised it into something that is distinctly Singapore. But, as with all things, with an open economy, we take in both the good and the bad. While it was sobering to Singaporeans to learn of global terrorism, it was shocking to discover that the brand of militant Islam has infiltrated into our region, and into Singapore. The White Paper has so clearly put forth that certain members of our citizenry have been indoctrinated with these virulent teachings. They saw no contradiction between living in a prosperous and harmonious society of ours, while serving in a militant group that would destroy any society and anyone that does not believe in their brand of religion. In their pursuit of achieving a supra-national goal, they are prepared to sacrifice lives, regardless of race or religion. They are dangerous people who could, in just one act of violence, destroy what several generations of Singaporeans had built and achieved. We stand to lose a lot. They threaten our way of life and threaten the open society which is vital for Singapore's prosperity. We stand to lose the confidence of international investors. As we make Singapore into a more diversified and knowledge-based economy, all the more we need to attract the foreign talents and investments. Many jobs are dependent on the stability and the continued assurance of stability in Singapore. Our pillar of inter-racial trust and tolerance that has served us so well - all races working together towards the goal of a meritocratic society, equal opportunities for all, an upward mobility irrespective of our current station in life - is threatened. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in essence, we stand to lose the future for our children. It is a shock that Al-Qaeda linked elements are in our midst. So, we must send the message, far and wide, down to every level, reaching every member of the Singapore family, the severity of the issue confronting us. Whilst the initial shock and disbelief may have diminished over time, this security issue, and the implications, cannot be brushed aside and wished away. Many Singaporeans still think it will just go away. Well, it is not a sudden apparition that would disappear with the blink of an eye. As the White Paper has traced the origins, this strain of terrorism has mutated and festered around the region and contaminated our shores a decade ago. While we may have crippled the in-country JI cells, the region around us continues to remain hotbeds of terrorism. While some governments are hampered by domestic agenda, others continue to offer sanctuaries to these terrorists, and the sources of this fanaticism continue to provide the spiritual, organisational and financial support to continue to subvert legitimate governments and societies, Singapore cannot let its guard down. We cannot ring-fence Singapore. As such, I believe it is time to impress on one and all that in order to keep terrorism away from our shores, it requires each and every one of us to do our part. As a people, we must be prepared to take the long-term view and take the measures to ensure that we preserve the society, as we know it now. Let us not delude ourselves that there are quick fixes or, worse, believe that the issue has been fixed. As a phenomenon that originated from the pan-Islamic revivalist movement from the Middle East and its reach fuelled by petro-dollars, the transnational terrorist network of Al-Qaeda and its JI associates will be major security challenges for years to come. So, while I hear some quarters talk about alienating decent people, about the uncomfortable glare of directing the spotlight on certain segments of our population, bear in mind that we have no other options. The security threat is real. The JI members in Singapore had gone for military training; organised themselves for subversive action and had even met fellow activists in the region secretly in order that they may harness and direct resources and efforts towards the harm of our fellow citizens. We have to expose these people; take long-term measures to ensure any others are rooted out and ensure new ones have little chance to take root on our shores and spawn. Just like my other parliamentary colleagues, I applaud the steps taken by the Government to safeguard our key installations. These measures must be continued to ensure that we are a hard target. The enemy is cunning and evolving. Inter-agency cooperation must be enhanced; new organisations and institutions formed, and our Government must ensure that we have the latest technology and informational tools to combat this enemy. Beyond physical security, we have to raise national awareness, keep our guard up and act with one resolve. Each of us has a role. Now that there is full awareness of the insidious nature of the JI operatives, we must look out for instances of aberrant and deviant pockets. We must be vigilant at all times. It was only through the information of one concerned Singaporean that ISD had the first specific lead on Aslam and from that point, the whole JI network in Singapore unravelled. I believe vigilance must be practised at different levels to be effective. While the Government will not let up on its stringent vigilance, I believe religious bodies, parents and families can play very important roles in this challenge. We must be assured of the vigilance of the religious bodies. Why religious bodies? Because we are dealing with an extremist ideology and in this current instance, it happens to be a deviant strain of Islam. But under different circumstances, it could happen under the guise of any other religion. History has ample examples of extremists using religion as cover for their activities. Hence, all religious bodies must take stock and be on the lookout for attempts to use their religious bases for political agenda. In the White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony in 1989, the Singapore Government had clearly stated the principle of rigorous separation of religion and politics. Thirteen years on, this is still as valid and must be strictly adhered to. Our religious bodies must find avenues to reaffirm this commitment in order that Singapore can continue to enjoy inter-racial harmony. No one should take advantage of the religious freedom that Singapore practises to perpetuate other foreign agenda. Religious bodies and leaders must have their feelers out to detect those who stray and have ways to draw these followers back into their folds or choke off support so that virulent teachings do not spread. The message to our Muslim citizens is very clear - you are not alone in tackling misguided individuals intent on using religion for extremist acts. Every religion is at risk and every religious body must be alert and proactive in ensuring their followers stay on their religious paths. Other than the vigilance of Government and religious bodies, parents and families must also take responsibility. While the JI detainees are above 28 years, we know that some of the more charismatic religious leaders were able to penetrate homes and took advantage of teaching platforms to proselytise their extremist views. Only parental good sense and judgment would ferret out these imposters and eliminate this avenue of contamination. What else can we do to enhance our social cohesion so that we can confront and manage any events that threaten to tear us apart? The respect that we must have for each other's religions and cultural spaces cannot be under-estimated. We must continue to take steps to ensure that our entire social fabric remains strong and intact. The advent of the IRCCs and Harmony Circles already provide us with the tools to develop the continued understanding and rapport amongst our people. This inter-racial, inter-cultural and inter-religious understanding and rapport is very important. It is all too easy to take a simplistic view of this, but we cannot. We have our very own unique pluralistic, secular and multi-racial identity that we must preserve at all costs. Any dismantling of this will lead to our downfall. We cannot fully anticipate what would hit us next. The foe will certainly evolve new strategies to undermine security and stability even as we take measures to fortify ourselves. But if we can build this great sense of unity as one people - investing time and effort to understand our fellow citizens better, accommodate each other with all outward manifestation and affirmation of support for each other - then can we tackle any such threats as one united people with no in-fighting. I second the call by so many hon. Members that this is the time to drop any reservations, come out from all our comfort zones and erase any fault lines between the races by all of us getting into the mainstream of Singapore society. It is with this national fortitude that we can weather any threats that threaten our social cohesion. In many ways, this is a call to Total Defence for every Singaporean. While many of us serve National Service and are equipped with the skills to defend the sovereignty of our nation, every Singaporean can also participate in National Service on a daily basis through: full hearted participation in the IRCCs and Harmony Circles, giving life to the ideals of these bodies; build on the trust and respect that we have for each other; do our part to ensure foreign subversive elements do not drive wedges among us; and, finally, build our "internal strength". It is a long road. I had begun by saying that we must take a long-term view. We must persevere. I reiterate that there are no quick fixes and it requires hard work on everyone's part. Let us be prepared to defend what we have. Pull together and redouble our efforts. Again, I repeat, we have no other options. I support the motion.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.20 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.55 pm until 3.20 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm

Debate resumed.

(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.

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.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I move the motion of adjournment, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present here to move a motion that Parliament sits on Saturday, 25th January 2003.

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon. Members present to so move? Hon. Members indicated assent. Resolved,

That Parliament do sit on Saturday, 25th January 2003. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Saturday, 25th January 2003." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng.] Adjourned accordingly at Four o'clock pm to Saturday, 25th January 2003.