Rilek1Corner

Tag: terrorism

  • Walid J. Abdullah: Singapore Must Foster A Culture Of Intolerance Towards Intolerance

    Walid J. Abdullah: Singapore Must Foster A Culture Of Intolerance Towards Intolerance

    Of the recent speeches by our politicians, two in particular stood out for me.

    First was the one given by Minister Yaacob Ibrahim, in which he said Singaporeans must be tolerant, and the only thing we should be intolerant towards is intolerance.

    This is most definitely a welcomed speech; the idea of accepting and tolerating different viewpoints is wonderful. (of course, intolerance needs to be defined properly first.)

    In this spirit, i hope more politically diverse opinions will be tolerated. I hope the media will give more coverage to different viewpoints. I hope serious discussions will take place on important issues: for example, the discourse on terrorism has been heavily skewed towards religious ideologies. While religious ideology is undoubtedly a factor, almost every major and serious research on terrorism states that other factors (foreign policy, socio-political conditions, loss of trust in authority etc) matter in radicalization too. Therefore, we must be tolerant of different viewpoints and discuss these issues openly and honestly. I further hope those with different standpoints will be met with reasoned argumentation, rather than the full force of the law.

    I truly hope, that we are indeed intolerant towards intolerance; whether it is religious or political.

    The second was by WP’s Leon Perrera, where he argued for a culture of diversity of opinions. Again, this would be a fantastic thing to have in our society. I hope WP will put its money where its mouth is: in the last parliament, there were occasions in which WP refused to take a stand on some issues or just ignored discourses that were going on in society, perhaps to not offend anyone and reach out to the median voter. I fail to see how keeping silent in important moments contributes to creating this culture.

    Hopefully, WP will truly exemplify the culture of diversity, not only by taking a stance on important matters, but by allowing its own members to take different positions on issues.

    If one is familiar with parliamentary speeches throughout the world, one would notice that they are often filled with grandiose plans and bombastic words, but unfortunately, with little outcome. One can only hope, that is not the case with these two promising speeches.

     

    Source: Walid J. Abdullah

  • 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

  • Osman Sulaiman: Open-Minded Approach To Sensitive Issues Required To Build Social Trust And Resilience Between Different Communities In Singapore

    Osman Sulaiman: Open-Minded Approach To Sensitive Issues Required To Build Social Trust And Resilience Between Different Communities In Singapore

    The recent terror attack in Paris unfolded a few incidents around the world victimizing innocent Muslims.

    – A girl being harassed by a bunch on men. They pulled her headscarf trying to dislodge it from her head. They continue to bully her.

    – A man shoved a Muslim woman into oncoming train at London underground.

    – Closer to home, a Singaporean woman has alleged that she was shouted at with anti-Islam comments at Tanah Merah MRT station.

    This beg a few questions. IF terror attacks were to happen in Singapore, how would the non-Muslim community react towards the Muslims in Singapore?

    1. Are we as cohesive as we would like to think as a community?

    2. Would the terror attack instil fear amongst Singaporeans to view the Muslims in Singapore with a stroke of the pen?

    3. Will we see more frequent hate speech against Islam here in Singapore? The hate speeches are already happening even now among my Fb friends.

    4. Will the gov indiscriminately target the Muslim population here for ‘extra’ vigilance?

    5. There are among Muslims, women who wear the Burqa. The one that covers their entire face except their eyes. How will the terror attack affect them?

    Our racial integration is somewhat successful although there are still deep fault lines not addressed and discussed openly.

    A terror attack in Singapore can either open a can of worms or it may just unite Singaporeans together in Solidarity.

    Of cause the latter will be the most ideal. But for that to happen, Singaporeans need to be prepared and take an open minded approach to sensitive issues

     

    Source: Osman Sulaiman

  • Thai Bombing Suspect ‘Not Cooperative’

    Thai Bombing Suspect ‘Not Cooperative’

    The foreigner arrested on suspicion of involvement in the deadly Aug 17 bombing is not cooperating with investigators, Thai police said.

    As the 28-year-old is believed to be part of a network, the security agencies are expanding their hunt, based on mobile phone records, for others behind the blast that killed 20 people, 12 of them foreigners.

    Yesterday, police searched another house in the Minburi district, close to where last Saturday’s arrest took place, and found more bomb- making materials.

    Security agencies downplayed the view held by many analysts that the blast was an act of international terrorism, saying that while no motive is being ruled out, the man who was arrested could be part of a people-smuggling group, acting in a feud.

    “Security forces have always been reluctant to define something as terrorism, for domestic and international political reasons,” said Professor Panitan Wattanayagorn, an adviser to the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, General Prawit Wongsuwan. “But there is no reason really not to call this terrorism,” he acknowledged.

    The suspect is being held for possessing illegal explosives. The haul found at his rented apartment was “staggering”, said a source familiar with the investigation.

    It included bomb-making materials such as pipes and fuses, ball bearings of the type used in the Aug 17 bomb and, according to a picture released by police, at least one explosive belt of the kind used in suicide bomb attacks. Stacks of fake Turkish passports were also found.

    The source said the area where the suspect stayed, in the eastern outskirts of Bangkok, is a “staging point for Uighurs going to Malaysia or Turkey”.

    Of the foreigners killed on Aug 17, most were ethnic Chinese, though of different nationalities.

    Security analysts speculate that the blast was a possible revenge attack by extremist Uighur elements in retaliation for Thailand’s deportation last month of more than 100 Uighurs to China, which drew widespread outrage. The Uighurs are a Turkic-speaking Muslim minority in China’s restive Xinjiang region.

    At a press conference yesterday, a regime spokesman, Colonel Winthai Suvaree, made only a brief statement, then showed film clips of normal life and security officers checking people at border posts.

    Analysts see the reluctance to use the “terrorism” label as aimed at protecting the local tourism sector.

    China, too, is reluctant to link the blast to the Thai regime’s acquiescence to its deportation requests, said one analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity. That would be admitting the deportation triggered a deadly backlash.

    Said the source familiar with the investigation: “The facts speak for themselves – the scale, venue, the identity of those killed, the ethnic origin of the suspect. You don’t have to be a terrorism expert to draw a conclusion.”

    Denial would only mislead the international community as well as Thailand’s own security agencies, analysts warn.

    “While Thailand should be commended for its initial breakthrough in the investigation, Bangkok must understand that the threat is persistent. No country, including Thailand, should deny the reality of the terrorist threat in South-east Asia,” Singapore-based security specialist Rohan Gunaratna said.

    “The impact of the terrorist attack in Bangkok needs to be harnessed… to strengthen their counter-terrorism capabilities. Rather than denying (that it is terrorism), it is in the long-term interests of Thailand and the region for Bangkok to engage (with)… counter-terrorism partners and address gaps and loopholes.”

    Deputy police chief Jakthip Chaijinda yesterday urged the media to “have confidence in the state officials, in the military, police”.

    “We are not going to risk our team, our nation and our country to (find) a scapegoat to close this case. There are many parties, many organisations watching,” he said.

    “Contrary to what critics say, the Thai police actually do a very good job; they are not flashy but they plod and prod,” the source told The Straits Times. “There may be little understanding of the broader picture, but it is robust police work.”

    However, he warned that the bombing had changed the situation. “Now they must allow their professional, good officers – and there are many – to work free of any political interference. It is in the Thais’ own interests that there should be no political spin.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • ABC Admits Error In Judgment In Allowing Former Terrorism Suspect To Join Q&A Audience

    ABC Admits Error In Judgment In Allowing Former Terrorism Suspect To Join Q&A Audience

    The ABC has admitted last night’s Q&A program “made an error in judgement” in allowing former terrorism suspect Zaky Mallah to join the Q&A audience and ask a question in a statement issued by the ABC this morning.

    In last night’s episode, which was debating proposed changes to citizenship, Mallah said Coalition statements, such as those made by MP Steve Ciobo, were the reason young Islamic people were preparing to leave Australia and fight for Islamic State, after raising a question on what might have happened if politicians, not courts, had decided his case when he was charged and confined under Howard government terrorism laws in 2003.

    Mallah later tweeted: “I would pay to see that Minister dumped on ISIS territory in Iraq”.

    ABC Television director Richard Finlayson admitted the program “made an error in judgement” in allowing Mallah to join the audience of the the show, saying the circumstances of his appearance will be reviewed by the ABC.

    “In attempting to explore important issues about the rights of citizens and the role of the Government in fighting terrorism, the Q&A program made an error in judgement in allowing Zaky Mallah to join the audience and ask a question,” he said.

    “Mr Mallah has been interviewed by the Australian media on a number of occasions. The environment of a live television broadcast, however, meant it would not be possible for editorial review of the comments he might make prior to broadcast, particularly if he engaged in debate beyond his prepared question.”

    Mallah was acquitted of two terrorism offences in 2005 but pleaded guilty to threatening to kill ASIO officials.

    The ABC has this morning come under fire, from a number of quarters, for its decision to put him on-air.

    Among the critics is News Corp columnist Rita Panahi who tweeted how, in January of this year, Mallah had said that she and fellow female columnist Miranda Devine were “whores” who should be “gangbanged on the Sunrise desk”.

    Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 9.32.19 amThe ABC confirmed it will now review the process which led Mallah to be brought onto the program but Finlayson also said: “Q&A will continue to raise issues that are provocative and controversial. There is always risk in undertaking live television. That is the nature of the Q&A program since it first aired in 2008.

    “As has been the case in the past on Q&A, circumstances will happen that are not anticipated. The critical question is whether risks could have been managed and the right editorial judgments made in advance.

    “The circumstances of Mr Mallah’s appearance will be reviewed by the ABC.”

    Miranda Ward and Nic Christensen  

    The full statement:

    In attempting to explore important issues about the rights of citizens and the role of the Government in fighting terrorism, the Q&A program made an error in judgement in allowing Zaky Mallah to join the audience and ask a question.

    Mr Mallah has been interviewed by the Australian media on a number of occasions. The environment of a live television broadcast, however, meant it would not be possible for editorial review of the comments he might make prior to broadcast, particularly if he engaged in debate beyond his prepared question.

    Tony Jones correctly and immediately ruled a statement made by Mr Mallah as out of order.

    Q&A will continue to raise issues that are provocative and controversial. There is always risk in undertaking live television.That is the nature of the Q&A program since it first aired in 2008.

    As has been the case in the past on Q&A, circumstances will happen that are not anticipated. The critical question is whether risks could have been managed and the right editorial judgments made in advance.

    The circumstances of Mr Mallah’s appearance will be reviewed by the ABC.

     

    Source: http://mumbrella.com.au