Rilek1Corner

Tag: security

  • Global Survey: Most Will Trade Freedom For Security

    Global Survey: Most Will Trade Freedom For Security

    Most people think that violent terrorism is a major challenge facing their societies and they support tough measures to counter the problem at the expense of some civil liberties, according to a global survey on public perceptions towards violent terrorism commissioned by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), based in Washington.

    According to the findings released earlier this week — derived from 8,000 respondents in eight countries — one in two people feel that their governments have not taken adequate steps to address violent extremism.

    The survey was conducted in August this year and involved participants from China, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

    Around 25 per cent of the respondents from Turkey and France felt that violent terrorism is the most important issue facing their countries. Overall, around two-thirds of those polled see violent extremism as a major problem in their country.

    “In everywhere except China, at least 75 per cent of those surveyed expect a terrorist attack in the next year,” said CSIS in a report of the survey findings.

    “On a more alarming note, a majority in every country believes that it is likely that violent extremist groups will acquire and use weapons of mass destruction in their lifetime.”

    The majority of respondents in Turkey, France and the US feel their own governments have not taken adequate steps to contain and prevent violent extremism.

    In late June, a gun and bomb attack on Istanbul’s Ataturk airport killed more than 40 people and injured more than 230. Yesterday, a Turkish official said police in the capital had fatally shot a suspected Islamic State (IS) group militant who was planning a suicide bombing.

    France has also been hit hard by violent terrorism, with 230 deaths and about 700 injuries as a result of attacks said to be carried out by IS.

    Both France and Turkey are both sources of a relatively high number of foreign militants fighting in Iraq and Syria, with an estimated 700 French citizens and 500 Turks fighting under the IS flag.

    Just last month, an Afghan-born American sowed terror across Manhattan and New Jersey, wounding 29 people before he was arrested — the latest in a spate of lone-wolf attacks to rock the US.

    Despite widespread anxiety about the terrorist threat, 73 per cent of respondents in the CSIS survey believe that violent extremism can be eradicated.

    When asked about potential measures to counter violent extremism, 90 per cent were in favour of requiring all citizens and visitors to have identification cards.

    A similar percentage also supported asking Internet companies to do an even better job of shutting down all content from violent extremist groups, while 71 per cent favoured allowing government agencies to monitor all phone records, email and social media for contacts with terrorists.

    Close to 90 per cent of the sample was also supportive of asking Muslim leaders to declare definitively that Islam does not in any way condone violent extremism or the creation of a caliphate. More than 80 per cent of those surveyed also said that immigrants who have not passed rigorous screenings and background checks for connections to extremism should be barred from entering their countries.

    On Monday, Iraqi forces, supported by a US-led international coalition, launched a major offensive on the city of Mosul, the IS’ last major stronghold in Iraq.

    The US expects IS to use crude chemical weapons as it tries to repel the offensive, although experts say the group’s technical ability to develop such weapons is highly limited.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Walid J. Abdullah: Muslims Are Biggest Victims Of Terrorism

    Walid J. Abdullah: Muslims Are Biggest Victims Of Terrorism

    Immigration Officer:

    First time you’re presenting at a conference?

    Me: No, but it’s the first time i’m being checked like this even after telling immigration i have a conference.

    Him: Are you nervous?

    Me: No, i’m disappointed.

    Him: Why? I’m just doing my job.

    Me: You didn’t check anyone else, so please don’t tell me this is random.

    *eons later*

    Him: You can have your passport back.

    Me: Can i ask why it took so long?

    *directs to another guy*

    Other officer: Err, we had another name like yours, with same surname too.

    Me: From Singapore? I can guarantee you there is none.

    We both know why it was only me who had to go through this, and no one else. Let’s not pretend.

    ——

    The reality is Muslims are the biggest victims of terrorism, whether directly or otherwise.

     

    Source: Walid J. Abdullah

  • Standard Chartered Bank: Employee Was Right To Hand Over Money To Robber

    Standard Chartered Bank: Employee Was Right To Hand Over Money To Robber

    A teller who handed over about $30,000 in cash to a robber at Standard Chartered Bank’s Holland Village branch on Thursday did the right thing, according to the bank, which has tightened security there with a security guard.

    Yesterday, an islandwide manhunt continued for the Caucasian man who had brazenly walked into the bank around 11.25am, slipped the teller a piece of paper with his demands, then got away with the money on foot.

    The branch did not have a security guard then, but a bank spokesman said it had “in-branch security measures” such as closed-circuit TV cameras and staff “are well trained to respond to such situations”.

    The teller acted in line with the bank’s protocols and “in the best interests of our customers and our colleagues”, the spokesman added. “Everyone was safe.”

    She also said the bank has taken immediate action to further enhance security, without giving details, citing ongoing investigations.

    Yesterday, a Certis Cisco security guard was present at the Holland Village branch, but this is understood to be a temporary measure.

    Banks contacted said it is not mandatory for banks to have security guards, although many do.

    The Straits Times observed yesterday that of the six banks – HSBC, StanChart, OCBC Bank, DBS Bank, Citibank and Maybank – in that stretch of Holland Village, the last two were the only ones that appeared not to have a security guard.

    An industry source said bank staff are instructed to hand over money peacefully during a robbery so as not to endanger the safety of staff and customers.

    “We always tell staff – don’t attempt to bring attention to the robbery. You don’t want to agitate the robber or antagonise him. What if he pulls out a gun and it turns into a hostage situation? That’s even worse,” he said.

    Most banks that The Straits Times contacted yesterday said the latest incident has not prompted a review of their security measures, since these are regularly updated.

    DBS said its branches are “equipped with robust security systems and features”.

    A spokesman for OCBC said it has measures such as round-the-clock surveillance cameras and Certis Cisco guards. United Overseas Bank said its branch employees and security personnel have been reminded to be extra vigilant.

    It is understood that the police are studying CCTV footage from the vicinity of Holland Village to identify the suspect, who was described as a Caucasian wearing a grey hoodie and mustard trousers. No weapon was seen during the robbery, which was over in minutes.

    Business returned to normal yesterday along the stretch where the StanChart branch is located. Before the bank opened at 10am, customers were already waiting in line.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

     

  • Panic Over Unattended Bags At Queen Street And Woodlands Checkpoint

    Panic Over Unattended Bags At Queen Street And Woodlands Checkpoint

    Two unattended bags gave bystanders cause for worry in separate incidents – at a bus terminal in Queen Street and at Woodlands Checkpoint – last Friday.

    Chinese evening daily Lianhe Wanbao on Saturday reported witnesses as saying they were afraid the bags – a backpack and a luxury handbag – contained explosives.

    Police officers were seen surrounding the suspicious-looking bags, which were later claimedby their owners.

    Mr Xu Wei Lin, who was at the bus terminal on Friday, said: “The Jakarta bombing was still fresh in everybody’s mind.”

    On Thursday, a bomb went off in Jakarta, killing eight people and injuring more than 20. Militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria terrorist group have claimed responsibility for the attack.

    The owner of the bag found in Queen Street was a Mr Wong.

    The 50-year-old electrician told reporters he was using the bag, which contained clothes and electrical appliances, to hold a spot in the queue while he parked his electric bicycle nearby.

    The Malaysian, a permanent resident in Singapore, said he has been doing the same thing – using a bag to hold his place in the queue – for a year now.

    Every Friday, he takes the bus back to Johor Baru, and a connecting bus to Kuala Lumpur to visit his 80-year-old mother.

    He said: “I saw the police car, but I did not realise that they were here because of my unattended bag.

    “I didn’t expect it to cause any misunderstanding.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • How Do Singaporeans View National Security?

    How Do Singaporeans View National Security?

    “Protecting the Singaporean Way of Life” is the objective of Total Defence, a day that was commemorated last Sunday. Implicit is the understanding that total defence or national security is about protecting national sovereignty.

    But can it be assumed that this is what all Singaporeans invariably understand national security to be about? Could it also depend on what security might mean to the individual at a given point in time?

    A concern often voiced is whether younger Singaporeans, who did not live through political turbulence in the nation’s early years, would continue to believe the “vulnerability” narrative — that there are intractable security concerns endemic to Singapore’s small size and the geopolitics of the region, which require a long-term commitment to a strong defence.

    The peace and prosperity they were born into could lull them into believing that this vulnerability is a myth. In fact, some even wonder if the Singapore Armed Forces’ (SAF) capabilities are viewed as a threat to the region, rather than a deterrent.

    Seeing that Singapore has become an important global trading hub and a respected member of the international community, younger Singaporeans could be led to believe that the country’s defence is inherent in its importance to the world, especially the West, which would not allow it to fall. Hence, some might argue that Singapore need not allocate as much as it does to defence.

    Such a view, however, rests on complacent assumptions that afford Singapore little agency and leave too much to chance and the goodwill of allies. It is also short-sighted, premised on current favourable circumstances. Rather, a long-term view measured in generations has to be adopted.

    This entails a policy of sustained investment in a strong SAF that gives the island-state a range of autonomous options for any national security crisis, including even so-called non-traditional ones such as a pandemic.

    DOES ECONOMIC SECURITY TRUMP DEFENCE?

    The cost of protecting the Singaporean way of life is indeed steep. The Defence Ministry’s allocation of the annual budget has consistently been the largest. The value of the Singaporean way of life and what it represents to the individual — a high standard of living, law and order, peace, stability and so on — ought to sufficiently justify this.

    Surveys suggest that Singaporeans still generally appreciate the need for a strong defence in the long term. But this may carry less weight in the short term, especially during periods of economic uncertainty. Credit Suisse’s Youth Barometer 2014, which covered a wide range of topics from politics to economics, showed that financial worries dominate Singaporean youth concerns.

    In the absence of any obvious vulnerabilities or threat, the long-term need to actively maintain a strong defence posture can be displaced by immediate concerns of self-actualisation and individual economic achievement. Here, security may no longer be understood within the context of protecting national sovereignty.

    While the Singaporean way of life has always been a fundamental reason for defending Singapore, the daily difficulties experienced by Singaporeans in achieving this way of life during economic downturns could cause individual insecurity, at least in the short term.

    It then becomes not so much a concern about merely having a life in Singapore that is safe from threat to its sovereignty, but personally achieving the Singaporean way of life and all that it materially entails.

    The effect of such a shift, subtle but still noticeable, in how security is understood could be twofold. Apart from pressure on the Government to channel resources away from national defence to social welfare measures that enhance an individual’s economic security, the traditional pillars of defence might ironically seem to worsen it. For example, some who had to do National Service feel less economically competitive than those who did not have to do it. The enemy then is not an indeterminate national threat, but the more immediate threat to employment prospects.

    Some Singaporeans may thus be more worried about threats to their own economic well-being and personal aspirations instead of threats to Singapore’s sovereignty or a terror attack here in the global struggle against Islamic extremism.

    Arguably, a nascent national security challenge is convincing these Singaporeans that the nation is inherently vulnerable and needs to be ever vigilant precisely to safeguard Singapore’s achievements and position in the world.

    If protecting the Singaporean way of life is the key national security concern, what security means to the state and to individual citizens could be complicated; if the sovereignty of the state is unsecured, individual economic security would be moot. Yet, if the average Singaporean has difficulty in personally achieving the expected Singaporean way of life, a sense of individual insecurity will trump national security. In fact, if Singapore as a nation begins to collectively feel this, it becomes a de facto national security issue.

    However, it is not a choice between two mutually exclusive positions. Those who hold the latter view need to be convinced that economic security grows out of national sovereignty, which is most visibly guaranteed by a strong SAF.

    A strong defence posture cannot be assumed to be unnecessary in times of peace, even if its contributions are indirect and unquantifiable, for defence cannot be disentangled from Singapore’s economic prosperity.

    On the other hand, those who give priority to national defence need persuading that long-term security concerns cannot unconditionally eclipse immediate and real bread-and-butter concerns, especially when they are a source of insecurity. As the economist John Maynard Keynes once said: “In the long run we are all dead.”

    In commemorating 31 years of Total Defence, it may be timely to revisit what “total” security means to the nation and how each of the five pillars of Total Defence is best applied to that conception of national security.

    ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

    Ho Shu Huang is a PhD candidate with the Department of War Studies, King’s College London and an Associate Research Fellow at the Institute of Defence & Strategic Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com