Newspaper article

Singapore steps up efforts to counter terrorism
Date : 17 March 2009
Sypnosis
People are the key to fighting terrorism as it is not possible for the government alone to tackle every security threat, and this is why the government has placed emphasis on involving the community in the prevention, protection and consequence management in coping with terror attacks, said DPM Wong Kan Seng.

17 March 2009
The Opening Ceremony For Global Security Asia (GSA) 2009 at the Singapore Expo - Speech by Mr Wong Kan Seng, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, 17 March 2009
Distinguished Guests
Ladies and Gentlemen
It is my pleasure to be here today at the opening ceremony of Global Security Asia (GSA) Conference and Exhibition 2009. Since its inception in 2005, this is the third in the Series of the only dedicated Homeland Security Event in the Asia Pacific Region.
The security landscape has evolved over the years. Terror threats are dynamic and pose a constant challenge to those involved in the work of homeland security. This year’s conference and exhibition underscores the continual need to harness science, engineering and technological capabilities to deal with the changing security landscape, address emerging threats and to safeguard the interests of our people.
LEVERAGING ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN COUNTER-TERRORISM AND HOMEFRONT SECURITY: SINGAPORE’S EXPERIENCE
Besides the conventional arms and explosives, terrorists are also making use of chemical, biological and radiological agents to execute bio-terrorism. To stay ahead of terrorists threats, we need to share our experiences and learn from one another. Let me briefly sketch Singapore’s experience.
Singapore is an island and our borders are not "airtight". To ensure the safety of our country and its citizens, it is imperative for us to detect and stop any threat as far away from our borders as possible. Strengthening our borders as it is our first line of defence is a top priority.
We recognize the crucial role of science and technology in our security operations, especially in defending against physical as well as chemical, biological, radiological and explosive (CBRE) threats. This is why we set up the Office of the Chief Science and Technology Officer (OCSTO) in June last year.
Two months ago, the OCSTO and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) set up a Protective and Analytical Facility (PAF) at the Tuas Checkpoint which is the only dedicated land checkpoint for vehicles carrying hazardous materials, from Malaysia. Using advanced scientific equipment, the facility allows early screening and confirmation of security materials that are CBRE in nature. This facility protects our borders against the intrusion of materials that may cause harm if they managed to slip into Singapore undetected.
Other than screening materials, we are also using science and technology to screen travellers. A major project in the pipeline is the setting up of a Human Factors laboratory at the land checkpoints to apply biometrics, behavior profiling and Bio-Signal analysis. For example, we will explore whether multi-modality biometrics (e.g., finger-print, face recognition, palm print, retina, iris, voice pattern, signature, ear, gait, skin texture and finger vein) can be used to verify and identify the travellers of security interest with a higher order of certainty.
In addition to protecting our entry points for visitors and goods, we also have to protect our long and porous coast line. We are also the world’s busiest port. As shown in the example of the Mumbai attacks, the importance of coastal security is clear.
To counter and deter potential seaborne threats, we will be significantly increasing the capabilities of our Police Coast Guard (PCG). We are acquiring ten new Coastal Patrol Crafts (CPCs) and equipping them with better surveillance systems, radars and equipment for them to identify and track the movement of vessels. We will also boost the training for our PCG officers with the commissioning of an Integrated Tactical Training Centre this year.
CONTINUED VIGILANCE A NECESSARY ON-GOING EFFORT
Technological tools in themselves are useful but insufficient to detect and contain the terrorism threat. The tools are only as effective as their human operators. Our people are the key to fighting terrorism as it is not possible for the government alone to tackle every security threat. This is why we have placed emphasis on involving the community in the prevention, protection and consequence management in coping with terror attacks and mitigating the extent of its damages.
To get the general public prepared, Emergency Preparedness (EP) Days were introduced to prepare the community in coping with unconventional threats such as chemical release and bomb explosions through ‘live’ demonstrations as well as Emergency Preparedness validation stations. To strengthen our partnership with private sector stakeholders, we engage specific industries such as the hotel, financial institutions and chemical industries. We want to involve the private sector to play a bigger role in preparing for crisis situations through participation in emergency preparedness exercises and the implementation of target hardening measures.
Large scale simulated emergency exercises - Exercise North Star
As part of preparing our community and businesses for the terrorist threats, the Home Team, including the SPF, the SCDF, and other related agencies,have conducted a series of large scale simulated national exercises. Three years ago, Exercise Northstar V simulated terrorist attacks on our land transport systems, based on the bombing scenarios in Madrid in Mar 2003 and London in 2005. In May last year, we tested our national response plan to a major fire incident on board cruise ship which involved casualties, during Exercise Northstar VI.
This year, our Exercise Northstar VII will be based on a terrorist scenario similar to that of the Mumbai attacks. Police will be conducting the exercise in collaboration with multiple government agencies and private organizations to test and improve the collective response of not just the government but also the community to such incidents.
CONCLUSION: BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS TO TACKLE GLOBAL TERRORISM
I have shared at length Singapore’s experiences. However, we are acutely aware that efforts by Singapore authorities are not enough to tackle the transnational terrorist threat. Fighting terrorism requires international co-operation to be effective. Singapore has been an active player in supporting international counter terrorism efforts. We believe that collaborative cooperation between like-minded countries and its homeland security forces, as well as other agencies both in the public and private sectors is critical in the global fight against terrorism.
The gathering of participants and exhibitors for the GSA conference and exhibition is a concrete example of such collaboration between government agencies and private sector experts to share information and expertise in this industry. This year, we have many distinguished speakers and exhibitors, including for the first time, the participation of our counterparts from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the exhibition. This gathering of security professionals and industry experts provides a good opportunity for us to network and strengthen our overall preparedness in combating global terrorism. It is therefore important that we continue to tap on such opportunities to forge stronger partnerships in our common batter against terrorism.
On this note, I hope that all foreign and local participants will gain new insights through the exhibition and conference at GSA 2009.
Thank you.

For the commentary, scroll down below

It is a truth universally acknowledged: we must counter "terrorism," the scourge of the age, with "security," our savior and protector. "Security" ,that is, inspectors peaking into everything, expensive high tech machines sniffing for hidden deadly devices, police presence everywhere, huge military expenditures, will protect us. But is this a realistic expectation? Does it even make any sense?

Before touching on how to stop terrorism, we first have to think what drives these terrorists to continue what they are doing. There are many debates arguing on this but I feel that the most appropriate one is because, as its names suggests, to strike fear and terror in our hearts, identical to a childhood bully in the playground. The more he sees us reacting to his doings, the happier he would be. His goal is to create terror - so the more terror he sees, the more he knows his tactics are working, and the more he will do it. And now that we know the main motivation for the terrorists to carry on terrorizing us, we now have to reflect on what we are currently doing and find out where we got wrong. After a few attempts by the terrorists in Singapore, we are ‘strengthening our borders’ and use ‘science and technology to screen tourists’. What do you think the terrorists thought about that? Just a few, well placed attacks and they have disrupted the lives of millions and cost us millions of dollars in our futile attempts to stop them. I think that counts as a victory for the terrorists and not the other way around. In other words, what we are trying to do now, instead of stopping terrorism, is actually going to encourage terrorism.

Another fundamental flaw in such systems is the impossibility of maintaining vigilance over a long period of time while nothing. To counter this, Isaac Yeffet, the global security director of probably the best public "security" is probably that of El Al, the Israeli national airline, as no El Al plane has been hijacked since 1968, gave a number of talks and interviews in 2002 and 2003 when the United States was in the process of shaping its "security" response to 9/11. He is just like our government; feeling that the vast amounts of money spent on information technologies to secure airports and borders is not enough. In an interview Yeffet gave his prescription for good security: "We need to hire qualified people and not unqualified and untrained people, undedicated people that are running the security in our country these days. We need to hire people that, at minimum, they graduated from high school; that they speak English, that they are citizens, and we can train them a week in a classroom and another ten days on-the-job." Yeffet clearly thinks that more important than technology is a staff of screeners that are alert and well trained. However, this is futile. No matter how energetic a new guard regardless of job is, he will be sleepy and slow after an uneventful year on the job. The effect of routine is impossible to calculate, but nevertheless inevitable human factor. Its existence frustrates all planners. The terrorists need only sit back and wait while the guards stay alert for trouble while overseeing cheerful daily life. Sooner or later routine will stupefy them and the terrorists can exploit their inattention. By the time the terrorists do so, the guards would be so sleepy and slow that he would not even bat an eyelid when they begin to strike.

In conclusion, "Security" is a mad response to "terrorism" and so damaging to everything we value that we should reject it out of hand in spite of its reflexive appeal. It is also incredibly expensive in a time of rapidly diminishing resources. "Security" does provide an excuse for repression and gives windfall profits to the corporations who provide the gadgets and personnel. Since "security," paradoxically, wastes the substance of the country, and supplies profits to connected private interests, isn't it possible that those who advocate increased "security" intend these ends rather than the safety that "security" obviously never can supply? "Security" can protect an airline or a ball field, but not a country. As of now we need an army to protect ourselves against armies of other nations, but not foreign bases to control foreign populations. We need a police force to repress crime, but not a secret police force for "security." Any rational response to terrorism that is actually meant to stop it cannot be in the form of "security." "Security" will destroy the country before even saving it.

Joel Chin

3L’09

08

ERP Assingment

2. Once more to the Lake by E.B White

b) Write about a place that you would like to share with others, and describe how it became significant to you.

Human beings have the innate ability to remember that few living creatures can match. Our ability to remember makes our life richer regardless of whether the memories are happy ones or not. We remember events and people; especially sights, sounds, smells and tastes, many of which have a great impact on us, leaving indelible marks in our minds. Some memories are kept in the hope that we might relive them some day while others are blocked out, buried deep within our souls, to ensure that they would be avoided at all cost.

My trip to India– the land of mystery, enticement, and enchantment was one that I will never forget. I toured one of the major cities of India—New Delhi. I was expecting belly dancers, snake charmers, and other exotic sights filled with color and intricate decoration. While I did enjoy many of the tourist attractions, the majority of what I saw was totally unexpected and will haunt me forever.

As we boarded the bus, I looked around and this was when I had my first “real” glimpse of India. There was trash strewn all over; every crevice alongside old, cracked pavement roads were filled with rubbish.

Natives, seemingly oblivious to the filth, attended to their business but stopped for a moment to stare at the tour bus that held so many foreigners. Of course, they could scarcely see us because of the slightly tinted tour bus windows, but their dark eyes seemed to pierce straight through me.

Our guide told us that the people would flock around us, harassing and trying to take advantage of us. I never knew that the people in India were actually so poor that they had to resort to stealing from tourists. While I pride myself as being somewhat well travelled, I had never experienced anything like this before.

When we finally reached Delhi about an hour later, I looked excitedly out of my window, hoping to see a city in better condition than that of the area we had just left. But what I saw shocked me. Huge crowds of people stopped whatever they were doing and stared at us. Most of them wore dirty, tattered clothing and were startlingly thin. I couldn’t help but stare back at them, despite our tour guide’s warnings. My mother gave me a gentle nudge. I hugged my camera closer to my body and alighted from the bus.

The alleyways had a distinctive odor, a sweet but sickly smell that hinted a sense of decay. Someone suggested that it was marijuana. Perhaps people here felt that drugs were their only way of escaping their terrible lives.

A week later, as I boarded the plane, I felt relieved to be leaving India behind me. I looked back at all the people, many of them children, and thought how difficult it must be to have to go through hardships every single day, hardships worse than anything we, as modern Singaporeans, had ever endured. My heart was a mixture of helplessness, despair and guilt. I had left India, but these people had no way out.

Till today, the sights and sounds of these cities still haunt me. I suppose those memories always will.

Personal response to goodness

Why would anyone be willing to do good to others? Why are they willing to sacrifice their hard-earned time to help insignificant strangers? The answer is that little spark of fire in our heart that drives us to do extraordinary things, called blood kinship.
Have you ever wondered what drives worker bees to defend their hive selflessly at the risk of their own life? It is blood kinship. Before this theory was introduced, Darwin was puzzled by the fact that if his theory was right (which in the end was), then this act of altruism would be immediately abolished as it definitely could not be favored by nature. This almost made sense when blood kinship was introduced to him.
So what drives human beings to do good to others? I think that would be blood kinship. We as human beings have to remember that what we are doing is for the greater good of the community. We are actually saving copies of our own genes, copies that currently reside within our blood kins.
Another reason would be reciprocity. Individuals are willing to help others when they will get something in return., otherwise known as the “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” method.
In conclusion, I feel that humans are willing to help each other in need based on the two reasons as stated above.

Revised intro

In the current millennium, with so many advancements in science, we should not hinder the progress of stem cell researching. How you ever wondered whether there is a cure to various life-threatening diseases? Have ever wondered if that would be the medicine of the future? However, good things definitely have a bad side to it too. Stem cell research is definitely useful, but is there a different side that has not been published? In this essay, I will demonstrate both sides of the story and hope that you would take the same stand as me.

New interesting introduction

In the current millennium, with so many advancements in science, we should not hinder the progress of stem cell researching. How you ever wondered whether there is a cure to various life-threatening diseases? Have ever wondered if that would be the medicine of the future? However, good things definitely have a bad side to it too. Stem cell research is definitely useful, but is there a different side that has not been published? In this essay, I will try to put up an argument showing the pros and cons of stem cell researching.

Commentary on Stem cell research

In the current millennium, with so many advancements in science, we should not hinder the progress of stem cell researching. How you ever wondered whether there is a cure to various life-threatening diseases? Have ever wondered if that would be the medicine of the future? However, good things definitely have a bad side to it too. Stem cell research is definitely useful, but is there a different side that has not been published? In this essay, I will try to put up an argument showing the pros and cons of stem cell researching.

Stem cells should definitely be continued. Even the president of the united states of America, Barack Obama, agrees with me when he decided to revise Bush’s policy of completing shutting down of stem cell research in the united states. The new law would restore the US federal grants to scientists and research laboratories. This esoteric niche of scientific inquiry is geared towards the betterment of the human condition that to hold back its progress is just ungodly. Could you imagine how much poorer the store for human knowledge would be if searching minds such as Coppernicus and Charles Darwin had had their pioneering question curtailed by religious edict, just because it contradicted the religious dogma of the day. We must realise that the banning of stem cell research would be exactly the same. Stem cells have saved many people from life-threatening problems. For example, adult stem cells are already being used to save people from lung problems and are used in skin grafting . Newly approved drugs are being used to simulate the adult bone marrow to produce many blood-making stem cells and has successful cured a patient with lymphoma. It can also be used to restore blood flow to heart or brain after heart attacks or strokes. All this were only possible when stem cell research was continued. This proved that stem cell research have helped people and brought happiness to many people. Stem cell research should definitely be continued.

However, many people argue that stem cell research have brought more harm than help to human beings. For example, there are many risks entailing to the process of the research. The surgical extraction of the ova is a very good example. Supernormal of dangerous hormones must be used over many cycles to flog the woman’s ovaries to produce more ovaries than normal. This would cause it to cause more harm than it were to help. Another danger would be the cancer stem cells. Both them and good stem cells are very hard to differentiate. Sometimes, cancer cells could be injected into patients along with good ones. This would also cause more harm than to help.

But this is not true. Because of the increase if risks in the surgical extraction of the ova, scientists are currently developing banks of embryonic stem cells differentiated by tissue markers. Thus, this would decrease the risk in this operation and make stem cell research a definite must-do. In the second counter-point, I have to agree that it was very hard to differentiate from the two. But that was only in the past. Now, scientists are able to differentiate them and kill the remaining cancerous stem cells and thus making it to cause more help than harm.

In conclusion, I would like to reinstate the point that stem cell research should be continued as the pros outweigh the cons. It brings more help than harm. If it were to be banned, could you imagine parents of of children that are down because of a very serious sickness and someone out there is preventing them a possible cure? That would be wrong.