I have noted before that the government seems to have an increased focus on the threat of terrorism of late. Based on the arrest figures that they themselves have made reference to, it doesn’t appear that the risk is more heightened than before. It does then beg the question of why the threat of terrorism has suddenly become the bogey man du jour? I am not suggesting that we should all ignore the threat – terrorism remains a global threat from which Singapore is not exempt. What I am saying however is that the threat has always been there so why the sudden all out government focus?

Minister for Defence, Ng Eng Hen has made repeated references to this threat this year as has Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat. Our recent National Day Parade was also declared an enhanced security special event by the police due to fears of possible terrorist attacks. Now, we have Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam joining the fray by telling 300  Institute of Technical Education (ITE) students of the dangers of extremism In citing examples, the minister noted that 20 people have been arrested since 2015, with 11 arrests from 2007 to 2014. From these figures, it is evident that this is not a new threat. So, why is the spotlight shining on this in 2018 and not 2015?

Is the government slow to react? Has the government received new intel? Or, can it be argued that fear is the best way to keep people from trying out new things (such as voting for opposition parties)? Is it possible that fear is used as a means to distract people from the larger issues in the country? For the avoidance of doubt, let me reiterate that these are just speculations. There may be no truth to any of these concerns and the timing may just be a coincidence. That said, the timing is interesting.

I know that these observations have been made before but it is easy to forget possible motivations when people are on high alert and afraid. As such, it is important for us to remember the bigger picture when considering our options. We have to keep things in perspective. Based on current reports, the threat of terrorism is not higher this year than previous years. With this in mind, we have to wonder why our ministers are constantly reminding us of the threat this year. Is it to remind us that we need them to keep us safe?

As Shanmuggam said: “The fact you don’t worry about suicide bombers is not because they don’t want to come but, so far, because the Government, the public, and the security forces have worked together to keep them out.” If the message is indeed to tell us that we need the government of the day to keep us safe, I would like to counter that by pointing out that our police force and military forces will do their job no matter who the government is. Beware of the subtext!

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

If govt wants to rail against FB for not complying with its wishes, they should stop using it altogether.

From businesses to politicians and even charities – everyone wants a platform…

Patience is no longer key to a successful political transition in Sudan

Amid the ongoing conflict in Sudan, there is a need for civilian rule and subsequent democracy, according to a recent opinion piece by Byamukama. Since the 2021 coup, the country has been run by the army, and neither coup leader General Abdel Fattah Burhan nor Rapid Support Forces leader General Mohammed Hamdan Dangalo appear to have any intention of relinquishing power. The concern is that the fighting might escalate and destabilize the entire region, spilling over into neighboring countries, such as Chad and Egypt, which are also under juntaism and limited democracy.

Why did the Ministers get their wives to sign the tenancy agreements for Ridout Road properties?

Opinion: Despite clearing Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan of corruption, questions remain: Why were their wives, who seemingly do not meet the necessary financial criteria, permitted to rent state properties at Ridout Road? According to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) bidding form, an individual bidder should have an average monthly income at least three times the bid rent. In this instance, Mrs Shanmugam and Mrs Balakrishnan would need to earn $79,500 and $57,000 per month, respectively, to qualify as bidders under these criteria. However, while it appears that both wives fall short of these income requirements, their husbands would meet the criteria. This discrepancy prompts the question: Why did the wives sign the tenancy agreements, and why didn’t the SLA ask the Ministers to be the ones officially listed as the bidders?

“Roared like a tiger, but now quiet as a mouse”

Referring to an article published on the South China Sea dispute, Secretary…