mollymeek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mollymeek) wrote,@ 2007-06-10 16:55:00 |
|
There's terrorism, and there's the terrifying
You have probably seen news headlines declaring, somewhat proudly, that we have managed to nab more people who are engaged in terrorist activities. No, to be more specific, these news articles seem to be showing evidence of how efficient we are at dealing with terrorists and people who have "plans" to engage in terrorist activities.
As CNA reports:
While Molly is in no way supportive of terrorism or any plans to conduct terrorist activities, she is interested in what constitutes "planning" to conduct terrorist activities. How do we determine if a person is planning terrorist activities? Through a technology a la Minority Report? Do we or should we have a right to arrest someone who is at the "planning" stage?
Molly isn't too sure if DPM Wong has gotten people's views wrong. How many people would think that it isn't necessary to nab terrorists if they have not conduct a terrorist attack in Singapore? Well, if a person was involved in terrorist activities in another country, he would be a wanted person in that country and we should certainly help to nab that guy if we could.
But do we have to detain the person for ourselves?
And why do we have to resort to the Internal Security Department (ISD) and the Internal Security Act (ISA)? The real concern is not whether we detain people but it is why people can be detained without trial. There is also the question of what the "rehabilitation" techniques employed by the ISD are. Can the public trust the state machinery so unreservedly? If a person has committed a crime, why can't he simply be arrested by the police and put on trial? Moreover, it seems that people have been detained even before they have done anything criminal, as suggested by the idea that we need to detain people with "plans" to conduct terrorist activities. Doesn't the difficulty of determining what wrong a person at the "planning" stage has done seem to further warrant the need for a fair trial?
Of course, Molly isn't saying that we should wait until the person has bombed up a place before arresting the person, but why can't we use conventional, internationally accepted legal procedures used here? Why the ISD?
Are there any laws or measures to protect ordinary, innocent citizens, i.e. to prevent the ISD from being used as a political or repressive tool by the government?
In the 1980s, when people were paranoid about communism, people were arrested by the ISD for being involved in a Marxist conspiracy. A number of these people were to later claim to be innocent and, indeed, it has been claimed that the arrests were politically motivated. When people are detained without recourse to a fair trial, it is not only justice but also the integrity and reputation of Singapore's state bodies that are at stake.
No matter how much the ISD is contributing to Singapore's security, can't the system be refined to protect innocent people - at least in case of a freak election result when a repressive government take over the place of the immensely fair and upright PAP government which certainly won't abuse the ISD??
Note: This post has nothing to do with the previous post about the termination of Alfian Sa'at's relief teaching position.
You have probably seen news headlines declaring, somewhat proudly, that we have managed to nab more people who are engaged in terrorist activities. No, to be more specific, these news articles seem to be showing evidence of how efficient we are at dealing with terrorists and people who have "plans" to engage in terrorist activities.
As CNA reports:
[DPM Wong Kan Seng is concerned that some people hold the] view that it is unnecessary to detain those who have not killed in terror attacks here - even if they had plans to do so overseas.
[He says,] "If an individual can go overseas and conduct violence and terrorist activities, he can one day also come back and do the same to Singapore and work against Singaporeans. We've seen this in many countries."
While Molly is in no way supportive of terrorism or any plans to conduct terrorist activities, she is interested in what constitutes "planning" to conduct terrorist activities. How do we determine if a person is planning terrorist activities? Through a technology a la Minority Report? Do we or should we have a right to arrest someone who is at the "planning" stage?
Molly isn't too sure if DPM Wong has gotten people's views wrong. How many people would think that it isn't necessary to nab terrorists if they have not conduct a terrorist attack in Singapore? Well, if a person was involved in terrorist activities in another country, he would be a wanted person in that country and we should certainly help to nab that guy if we could.
But do we have to detain the person for ourselves?
And why do we have to resort to the Internal Security Department (ISD) and the Internal Security Act (ISA)? The real concern is not whether we detain people but it is why people can be detained without trial. There is also the question of what the "rehabilitation" techniques employed by the ISD are. Can the public trust the state machinery so unreservedly? If a person has committed a crime, why can't he simply be arrested by the police and put on trial? Moreover, it seems that people have been detained even before they have done anything criminal, as suggested by the idea that we need to detain people with "plans" to conduct terrorist activities. Doesn't the difficulty of determining what wrong a person at the "planning" stage has done seem to further warrant the need for a fair trial?
Of course, Molly isn't saying that we should wait until the person has bombed up a place before arresting the person, but why can't we use conventional, internationally accepted legal procedures used here? Why the ISD?
Are there any laws or measures to protect ordinary, innocent citizens, i.e. to prevent the ISD from being used as a political or repressive tool by the government?
In the 1980s, when people were paranoid about communism, people were arrested by the ISD for being involved in a Marxist conspiracy. A number of these people were to later claim to be innocent and, indeed, it has been claimed that the arrests were politically motivated. When people are detained without recourse to a fair trial, it is not only justice but also the integrity and reputation of Singapore's state bodies that are at stake.
No matter how much the ISD is contributing to Singapore's security, can't the system be refined to protect innocent people - at least in case of a freak election result when a repressive government take over the place of the immensely fair and upright PAP government which certainly won't abuse the ISD??
Note: This post has nothing to do with the previous post about the termination of Alfian Sa'at's relief teaching position.
