BLOCKING radical websites would be a futile exercise as the
architecture and reach of the Internet make it practically
impossible to interdict all such sites, said Deputy Prime Minister
Wong Kan Seng in Parliament on Monday.
Responding to questions from MPs on what the Government is doing
to counter the continuing threat of jihadist radicalisation, Mr
Wong, who is also the Home Affairs minister said there are several
thousand radical sites and the number is growing.
'If we bring down one website, it can easily resurface under
another name or in another jurisdiction. To be effective, we would
not only have to block terrorist websites, but also popular social
networking platforms like YouTube and Facebook, which would clearly
not be practicable,' he explained. 'The same Internet that empowers
ordinary individuals unfortunately also serves radicals.'
Mr Wong said education is critical to inoculate the society
against jihadist ideology. Terrorists are increasingly exploiting
the Internet as an effective means to propagate their radical
ideology, promote their cause and recruit potential operatives. To
extend their reach, their messages have been posted online in
different languages, including English.
The Internal Security Department (ISD), for example, has for
many years held briefings and talks to schools and community
groups, to share its concerns about radicalisation. The Religious
Rehabilitation Group (RRG) also gives public talks, forums, media
interviews and written articles to alert the general Muslim public
to the falsehoods of jihadist ideology. Several other Muslim
leaders and organisations have also initiated and organised
community counter-ideology programmes.
'The common goal of these efforts is to help Singaporeans who
chance across radical teachings in the guise of religion to see
through the falsehood and not be led astray. These community
efforts are a positive development and we hope even more community
organisations and leaders will step forward to do likewise,' said
Mr Wong.
Mr Wong said Singaporeans themselves must play their part to
help loved ones turn away from the path of radicalisation. 'They
must not turn a blind eye or be unwilling to heed warning signs.
Fadil and Muhammad Thahir bin Shaik Dawood had let people close to
them know that they were interested in militant jihad, and these
people had noticed that they were surfing radical websites,' he
said, referring to the two detainees under the Internal Security
Act.
'However, none of them sought help from the religious or
government authorities. Instead, they brushed aside Fadil and
Thahir's jihadist talk as not serious. Had they contacted the
authorities at an earlier stage, things might have turned out quite
differently for Fadil and Thahir, and the two of them might not
have had to be detained or placed on Restriction Orders.'
Mr Wong emphasised that early intervention is the best way to
save a relative or friend from the road to radicalisation. 'It
gives him the best chance to be guided back to the correct path.
This is the socially and morally responsible thing to do; it should
not be seen as betrayal, because such action helps both the
individual and our society,' he added.
'We should not be paranoid. But as a community, we need to be
discerning enough to distinguish mere 'viewpoints' from 'something
more sinister', and have the moral courage to seek help from MUIS
and the government authorities when required.
'Not reporting suspicious warning signs could not only hurt
innocent lives, but also strain communal and familial relations if
the individual becomes thoroughly radicalised and does something
disastrous. Reporting warning signs is thus a necessary first step
towards countering radicalisation in our midst, and I can assure
you that no further action will be taken if it turns out to be a
false alarm.'
