- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
- Points
- 0
After Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam revealed how Mas Selamat's relatives sheltered him, MPs asked if the homes of the fugitive's relatives had been watched, how they had been questioned, and if the episode would hurt community relations. This is an edited transcript:
# Mr Hri Kumar (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC): There was a massive manhunt following Mas Selamat's escape. May I ask the Minister whether Mas Selamat's relatives or close associates were questioned or their homes placed under surveillance during this period?
Mr K. Shanmugam: Sir, investigations following Mas Selamat's escape from WRDC identified a loose network of friends, relatives and ex-JI associates. This totalled a few hundred people including Mas Selamat's own extended family which alone numbers more than a hundred. Investigations were conducted on all of them. Further actions were prioritised and pursued for those cases where there was a necessity based on intelligence.
For obvious operational security reasons I cannot talk about who were or who were not specifically subjected to surveillance, and what sort of surveillance was conducted.
As for Asmom, Asmom and Mas Selamat had not been in contact for many years. Asmom and his family never visited Mas Selamat when he was in detention prior to his escape. Nevertheless, ISD interviewed Asmom on March 3, a few days after Asmom had given refuge to Mas Selamat in his home. Asmom failed to inform the authorities of his contact with Mas Selamat at the interview. At that point in time, there was no evidence or intelligence to warrant any further action against him.
# Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah GRC): Based on MHA's findings so far, is the ministry satisfied that it's just confined to his family members? Given that Mas Selamat made his escape in a tudung, would the ministry assure the Malay community that there won't be unnecessary scrutiny of Malay women wearing tudung as they enter security areas, when they seek employment or when they move in and out of Singapore?
Mr Shanmugam: Let me deal with the point on tudung first. I think whether someone is picked up for scrutiny, whether or not he or she is wearing a tudung, really depends on security assessments. It's difficult to answer these questions in a vacuum. If there is an intelligence assessment and there is a necessity to check, there would be a check. If there is no reason to check, there would be none.
As to the broader question, the Government has consistently stated over the years that the actions of a few are not a reflection of the Malay-Muslim community as a whole. Our position remains unchanged. Over the years, the actions of the Malay-Muslim community have borne that out. They have been very supportive of our efforts to build a tolerant united community, and have consistently spoken out against violence in the name of any religion. There is no reason for employers or anyone else to shy away from employing members of the Malay-Muslim community or for anyone to use this incident as an excuse to target members of the Malay-Muslim community.
In the civil service, the recruitment policy is based on meritocracy. I can state categorically that this incident will not affect the Government's recruitment policies. Employers in the private sector should similarly hire individuals based on their individual suitability for the job.
And as for whether there is any further evidence that people beyond this family are involved, we don't have any such specific evidence for now.
# Dr Ong Seh Hong (Marine Parade GRC): I'd like to ask the Minister: Does he think this incident will have any adverse impact on the state of communal relations in Singapore, and what will the ministry do to allay any anxiety that some in the community may have?
Mr Shanmugam: I think, to be specific, Mr Ong is referring to the anxieties of the Malay community. Sir, I've made it clear that the three individuals committed a criminal offence of harbouring a prisoner of State. The threat Mas Selamat posed was a threat that was posed to Singapore as a whole and to all the communities in Singapore. His actions put all Singaporeans at risk. As such, all Singaporeans across the communities will feel disappointed with the actions of Asmom and his family. Their actions should not be projected on the Malay-Muslim community at large. I've said earlier many members of the Malay-Muslim community assisted in the hunt for Mas Selamat in 2008. The general response of the Malay-Muslim community shows that they view Mas Selamat in the same way that other communities do and, therefore, we have to look at this harbouring of Mas Selamat by Asmom and his family in context. We cannot allow the actions of these three persons to affect the state of communal relations, the trust and goodwill that has been built up over many years between our various communities, especially between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. We will continue to emphasise the importance of good race relations for the security and progress of Singapore.
# Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC): What efforts will be made to extend rehabilitation services to these members of the Asmom family?
Mr Shanmugam: Counselling services will be offered to them and though there is no specific evidence of them being influenced by radical JI ideology, religious counselling will also be offered to them.
# Dr Maliki Osman (Sembawang GRC): Were Asmom and his family members forthcoming when confronted with this evidence of this abetment of Mas Selamat's escape to Malaysia? Given the seriousness and gravity of the offence, was the punishment for Asmom and his family members too lenient? Thirdly, can the Minister give us more information on Nur Aini, so that we can have a sense as to why a person like that would make a decision to help and abet a prisoner of State and remain silent for the next two years?
Mr Shanmugam: When they were interviewed in March of 2008 obviously they were not forthcoming. However, when confronted with the facts in October of this year, they independently verified and confirmed having harboured Mas Selamat. They made their statements to the magistrate who took down their statements. I don't know whether you categorise that as forthcoming or not, but they were prepared to tell the truth when it was clear that the truth was out.
Were the sentences too light? We have to start by remembering one fact, which is that the sentences were meted out by the court. They were based on submissions by both the prosecution and the defence. The sentences in our view reflect the different degrees of involvement of the family harbouring and aiding Mas Selamat.
Nur Aini was obviously the most culpable. She has been given the longest jail sentence. The other two received shorter sentences probably because of their lesser involvement. The court is likely to have given weight to the fact that the assistance was not premeditated; rather, the three persons appear to have acted on misguided instincts of family ties on the spur of the moment.
Aisah, who was reluctant to let Mas Selamat in, is a housewife who was persuaded by Nur Aini, and it appears that Asmom may also have been initially unhappy about Mas Selamat being in the flat though he allowed Mas Selamat to stay.
But having said that, they did commit a serious offence and have thus been given custodial sentences.
Mahadir was issued with a stern warning in lieu of prosecution. He had not reported to the authorities that Mas Selamat was in his family's flat. But unlike the others, he also did not render any specific assistance to Mas Selamat and was not in the flat most of the time when Mas Selamat was taking refuge in it. His culpability is less severe than that of the rest of the family.
About Nur Aini's background. At the time that she harboured Mas Selamat, Nur Aini was a trainee teacher. At the time of her arrest this year, she was working as a Malay language teacher. There is however no indication that either she or her parents subscribe to the radical ideology held by Mas Selamat. They had failed to differentiate right from wrong when they decided to help Mas Selamat. They should have known better.
# Mr Viswa Sadasivan (Nominated MP): I am quite disturbed that given the fact that there can't be that many immediate members of the family, on the day of the escape shouldn't it have been standard operating procedure for the security forces to actually go down to the homes of the immediate family members?
Mr Shanmugam: We're naturally disappointed that despite the intensive and massive effort that was made to track him down, Mas Selamat managed to slip through and to take shelter with Asmom and his family. That having been said, the member will remember that I said on Mas Selamat's side alone - excluding his wife's side - just taking into account his relatives, a loose network, they number more than 100. I don't want to go into details of when what was done or what surveillance was done because these are operational security matters and it is not in the interest of our country for us to disclose these matters. However, the member can be assured that what was done has been reviewed and I am satisfied that all the necessary steps were taken.
# Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah GRC): Could the Minister clarify whether the investigations thus far have uncovered evidence of a more formal support network for Mas Selamat or JI in Singapore, and secondly whether the Minister considers that this episode has raised some lessons for our investigative agencies for the future?
Mr Shanmugam: There is no specific evidence of a larger support network for Mas Selamat in Singapore that continues to exist. However, I want to be very clear that we rule nothing out. We can only go on the basis of current evidence and current investigations, and that's the best I can say on the basis of current investigations. As to what lessons there are based on this episode, I think a number of statements had been made by DPM Wong. The escape itself was obviously a focus. I think it was due to, if I can summarise it, some oversight and complacency setting in at WRDC and it is a point from which both ISD and the agencies have a lot of takeaways. As a result, many changes have been made and WRDC itself is a very different institution right now.
I think the key takeaway from all of this is each time a lapse occurs, we analyse what happened and we determine not to repeat it and also do not allow ourselves to be brought down by that. As a result, ISD redoubled their efforts to make sure that they recover from the fact that Mas Selamat escaped. And that is why through their efforts we were able to get him back, albeit with the assistance of the Malaysian authorities. ISD never doubted that they could get him back and they did so.
# Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang GRC): Without casting aspersions on the police force which I have got the utmost respect for, Minister mentioned that Mas Selamat had not been in contact with this family for a number of years. The fact that four persons had been able to maintain their cool when they were interrogated, shortly after they had let Mas Selamat out of their house - does this show that perhaps the interrogation process had been perfunctory, or was manpower so stretched that less than competent officers had been deployed?
Mr Shanmugam: Ms Lee is drawing pretty large conclusions from a fairly narrow statement made by me. But let's go to the nub of the question. I said Asmom had been interviewed on March 3, 2008 and he didn't disclose anything. Does it necessarily lead to the conclusions that Ms Lee has drawn, that the investigators were either not experienced or how was it that he was able to keep his cool and why is it that we were not able to get the fact that they had harboured Mas Selamat?
Ms Lee is a lawyer. Members of the House will also appreciate, you get the best results out of an investigation when you know some of the facts and are able to corner the person. I had pointed out in my statement that the intelligence at that point in time did not warrant us to take any view other than that what Asmom was saying was accurate.
In October 2010, we knew more and it therefore enabled us to get different results from the interviews that took place in 2008.
I think we should stop way short of talking about whether the investigative procedures were good or not good. But I can assure Ms Lee that not just in ISD but also in the police force as a whole, we take the investigative process very seriously. DPM Wong started out a process where we train a cadre of investigative officers who are very skilled and who would be thoroughly professional in the interest of everyone. So that process is continuing. Nothing here necessitates a review of that process.
# Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast GRC): Was this family in the queue for counselling when Mas Selamat was first arrested? It took him two days of very deliberate planning to make his way from WRDC to this family. So he must have read this family very well for him to go through with it, and even have the family, coerced or otherwise, cooperate with him.
Mr Shanmugam: There was no indication to us that this particular family, Asmom's family, was in any need of counselling. But, as it were, I think a better answer to the member's question would be this: Member has assumed that Mas Selamat thought he would get help and deliberately made his way to this flat. In my statement I pointed out that Mas Selamat thought that there would only be one person in the house, Nur Aini. That seems to have been his primary motive, not because he thought that the entire family would help him.
# Mr Hri Kumar (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC): There was a massive manhunt following Mas Selamat's escape. May I ask the Minister whether Mas Selamat's relatives or close associates were questioned or their homes placed under surveillance during this period?
Mr K. Shanmugam: Sir, investigations following Mas Selamat's escape from WRDC identified a loose network of friends, relatives and ex-JI associates. This totalled a few hundred people including Mas Selamat's own extended family which alone numbers more than a hundred. Investigations were conducted on all of them. Further actions were prioritised and pursued for those cases where there was a necessity based on intelligence.
For obvious operational security reasons I cannot talk about who were or who were not specifically subjected to surveillance, and what sort of surveillance was conducted.
As for Asmom, Asmom and Mas Selamat had not been in contact for many years. Asmom and his family never visited Mas Selamat when he was in detention prior to his escape. Nevertheless, ISD interviewed Asmom on March 3, a few days after Asmom had given refuge to Mas Selamat in his home. Asmom failed to inform the authorities of his contact with Mas Selamat at the interview. At that point in time, there was no evidence or intelligence to warrant any further action against him.
# Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah GRC): Based on MHA's findings so far, is the ministry satisfied that it's just confined to his family members? Given that Mas Selamat made his escape in a tudung, would the ministry assure the Malay community that there won't be unnecessary scrutiny of Malay women wearing tudung as they enter security areas, when they seek employment or when they move in and out of Singapore?
Mr Shanmugam: Let me deal with the point on tudung first. I think whether someone is picked up for scrutiny, whether or not he or she is wearing a tudung, really depends on security assessments. It's difficult to answer these questions in a vacuum. If there is an intelligence assessment and there is a necessity to check, there would be a check. If there is no reason to check, there would be none.
As to the broader question, the Government has consistently stated over the years that the actions of a few are not a reflection of the Malay-Muslim community as a whole. Our position remains unchanged. Over the years, the actions of the Malay-Muslim community have borne that out. They have been very supportive of our efforts to build a tolerant united community, and have consistently spoken out against violence in the name of any religion. There is no reason for employers or anyone else to shy away from employing members of the Malay-Muslim community or for anyone to use this incident as an excuse to target members of the Malay-Muslim community.
In the civil service, the recruitment policy is based on meritocracy. I can state categorically that this incident will not affect the Government's recruitment policies. Employers in the private sector should similarly hire individuals based on their individual suitability for the job.
And as for whether there is any further evidence that people beyond this family are involved, we don't have any such specific evidence for now.
# Dr Ong Seh Hong (Marine Parade GRC): I'd like to ask the Minister: Does he think this incident will have any adverse impact on the state of communal relations in Singapore, and what will the ministry do to allay any anxiety that some in the community may have?
Mr Shanmugam: I think, to be specific, Mr Ong is referring to the anxieties of the Malay community. Sir, I've made it clear that the three individuals committed a criminal offence of harbouring a prisoner of State. The threat Mas Selamat posed was a threat that was posed to Singapore as a whole and to all the communities in Singapore. His actions put all Singaporeans at risk. As such, all Singaporeans across the communities will feel disappointed with the actions of Asmom and his family. Their actions should not be projected on the Malay-Muslim community at large. I've said earlier many members of the Malay-Muslim community assisted in the hunt for Mas Selamat in 2008. The general response of the Malay-Muslim community shows that they view Mas Selamat in the same way that other communities do and, therefore, we have to look at this harbouring of Mas Selamat by Asmom and his family in context. We cannot allow the actions of these three persons to affect the state of communal relations, the trust and goodwill that has been built up over many years between our various communities, especially between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. We will continue to emphasise the importance of good race relations for the security and progress of Singapore.
# Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC): What efforts will be made to extend rehabilitation services to these members of the Asmom family?
Mr Shanmugam: Counselling services will be offered to them and though there is no specific evidence of them being influenced by radical JI ideology, religious counselling will also be offered to them.
# Dr Maliki Osman (Sembawang GRC): Were Asmom and his family members forthcoming when confronted with this evidence of this abetment of Mas Selamat's escape to Malaysia? Given the seriousness and gravity of the offence, was the punishment for Asmom and his family members too lenient? Thirdly, can the Minister give us more information on Nur Aini, so that we can have a sense as to why a person like that would make a decision to help and abet a prisoner of State and remain silent for the next two years?
Mr Shanmugam: When they were interviewed in March of 2008 obviously they were not forthcoming. However, when confronted with the facts in October of this year, they independently verified and confirmed having harboured Mas Selamat. They made their statements to the magistrate who took down their statements. I don't know whether you categorise that as forthcoming or not, but they were prepared to tell the truth when it was clear that the truth was out.
Were the sentences too light? We have to start by remembering one fact, which is that the sentences were meted out by the court. They were based on submissions by both the prosecution and the defence. The sentences in our view reflect the different degrees of involvement of the family harbouring and aiding Mas Selamat.
Nur Aini was obviously the most culpable. She has been given the longest jail sentence. The other two received shorter sentences probably because of their lesser involvement. The court is likely to have given weight to the fact that the assistance was not premeditated; rather, the three persons appear to have acted on misguided instincts of family ties on the spur of the moment.
Aisah, who was reluctant to let Mas Selamat in, is a housewife who was persuaded by Nur Aini, and it appears that Asmom may also have been initially unhappy about Mas Selamat being in the flat though he allowed Mas Selamat to stay.
But having said that, they did commit a serious offence and have thus been given custodial sentences.
Mahadir was issued with a stern warning in lieu of prosecution. He had not reported to the authorities that Mas Selamat was in his family's flat. But unlike the others, he also did not render any specific assistance to Mas Selamat and was not in the flat most of the time when Mas Selamat was taking refuge in it. His culpability is less severe than that of the rest of the family.
About Nur Aini's background. At the time that she harboured Mas Selamat, Nur Aini was a trainee teacher. At the time of her arrest this year, she was working as a Malay language teacher. There is however no indication that either she or her parents subscribe to the radical ideology held by Mas Selamat. They had failed to differentiate right from wrong when they decided to help Mas Selamat. They should have known better.
# Mr Viswa Sadasivan (Nominated MP): I am quite disturbed that given the fact that there can't be that many immediate members of the family, on the day of the escape shouldn't it have been standard operating procedure for the security forces to actually go down to the homes of the immediate family members?
Mr Shanmugam: We're naturally disappointed that despite the intensive and massive effort that was made to track him down, Mas Selamat managed to slip through and to take shelter with Asmom and his family. That having been said, the member will remember that I said on Mas Selamat's side alone - excluding his wife's side - just taking into account his relatives, a loose network, they number more than 100. I don't want to go into details of when what was done or what surveillance was done because these are operational security matters and it is not in the interest of our country for us to disclose these matters. However, the member can be assured that what was done has been reviewed and I am satisfied that all the necessary steps were taken.
# Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah GRC): Could the Minister clarify whether the investigations thus far have uncovered evidence of a more formal support network for Mas Selamat or JI in Singapore, and secondly whether the Minister considers that this episode has raised some lessons for our investigative agencies for the future?
Mr Shanmugam: There is no specific evidence of a larger support network for Mas Selamat in Singapore that continues to exist. However, I want to be very clear that we rule nothing out. We can only go on the basis of current evidence and current investigations, and that's the best I can say on the basis of current investigations. As to what lessons there are based on this episode, I think a number of statements had been made by DPM Wong. The escape itself was obviously a focus. I think it was due to, if I can summarise it, some oversight and complacency setting in at WRDC and it is a point from which both ISD and the agencies have a lot of takeaways. As a result, many changes have been made and WRDC itself is a very different institution right now.
I think the key takeaway from all of this is each time a lapse occurs, we analyse what happened and we determine not to repeat it and also do not allow ourselves to be brought down by that. As a result, ISD redoubled their efforts to make sure that they recover from the fact that Mas Selamat escaped. And that is why through their efforts we were able to get him back, albeit with the assistance of the Malaysian authorities. ISD never doubted that they could get him back and they did so.
# Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang GRC): Without casting aspersions on the police force which I have got the utmost respect for, Minister mentioned that Mas Selamat had not been in contact with this family for a number of years. The fact that four persons had been able to maintain their cool when they were interrogated, shortly after they had let Mas Selamat out of their house - does this show that perhaps the interrogation process had been perfunctory, or was manpower so stretched that less than competent officers had been deployed?
Mr Shanmugam: Ms Lee is drawing pretty large conclusions from a fairly narrow statement made by me. But let's go to the nub of the question. I said Asmom had been interviewed on March 3, 2008 and he didn't disclose anything. Does it necessarily lead to the conclusions that Ms Lee has drawn, that the investigators were either not experienced or how was it that he was able to keep his cool and why is it that we were not able to get the fact that they had harboured Mas Selamat?
Ms Lee is a lawyer. Members of the House will also appreciate, you get the best results out of an investigation when you know some of the facts and are able to corner the person. I had pointed out in my statement that the intelligence at that point in time did not warrant us to take any view other than that what Asmom was saying was accurate.
In October 2010, we knew more and it therefore enabled us to get different results from the interviews that took place in 2008.
I think we should stop way short of talking about whether the investigative procedures were good or not good. But I can assure Ms Lee that not just in ISD but also in the police force as a whole, we take the investigative process very seriously. DPM Wong started out a process where we train a cadre of investigative officers who are very skilled and who would be thoroughly professional in the interest of everyone. So that process is continuing. Nothing here necessitates a review of that process.
# Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast GRC): Was this family in the queue for counselling when Mas Selamat was first arrested? It took him two days of very deliberate planning to make his way from WRDC to this family. So he must have read this family very well for him to go through with it, and even have the family, coerced or otherwise, cooperate with him.
Mr Shanmugam: There was no indication to us that this particular family, Asmom's family, was in any need of counselling. But, as it were, I think a better answer to the member's question would be this: Member has assumed that Mas Selamat thought he would get help and deliberately made his way to this flat. In my statement I pointed out that Mas Selamat thought that there would only be one person in the house, Nur Aini. That seems to have been his primary motive, not because he thought that the entire family would help him.
