Lessons from Mas Selamat's escape
Family ties pose moral dilemma; human lapses must be accounted for
By Chua Mui Hoong, Deputy Review Editor
THE news that dominated conversations yesterday was, not surprisingly, the revelation in Parliament of how family members of terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah leader Mas Selamat Kastari helped him after his escape.
Mas Selamat broke free from the Whitley Road Detention Centre on Feb 27, 2008. He turned up at the flat of his brother, sister-in-law and niece two days later. They sheltered him for one night, fed him, gave him money, helped disguise him with make-up and a tudung (head scarf) and sent him on his way. He eventually fled Singapore for Malaysia.
The salient details disclosed by Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam on Monday prompted a barrage of questions from MPs and Singaporeans.
Why weren't Mas Selamat's entry and exit from his brother's flat in Tampines detected? Surely the flat was under surveillance?
The answer in short: Security agencies were strapped. His extended family members totalled more than 100. Hundreds more were known contacts.
How come security officers who interviewed the family two days after Mas Selamat left the flat on March 1, 2008 did not ferret out the truth from them?
Answer: It is not so easy to get people to reveal things they want to hide, unless you have prior information to confront them with.
Mr Shanmugam valiantly explained the factors surrounding the incident in a neutral manner, without unduly justifying away mistakes, and without undue finger-pointing. His was a delicate position. Three factors stood out in his handling of the matter.
The first was timeliness: The trio who helped Mas Selamat were sentenced on Nov 18, last Thursday. Mr Shanmugam briefed the House on Nov 22, Monday - at the first parliamentary opportunity that presented itself.
The second was candour: As Mr Shanmugam dealt with MPs' probing questions, the veil would have fallen from their eyes.
There is a myth about Invincible Singapore that often prevails. This says Singapore is well-protected, with very smart, very tough people using very sophisticated technology to keep Singapore safe.
This myth was punctured by Mas Selamat's escape. To be fair, as Mr Shanmugam stressed, the Internal Security Department was confident it would get Mas Selamat back - and it did, when information it provided contributed to his recapture in Malaysia in April last year. He is back in captivity in Singapore.
Those listening to Mr Shanmugam in Parliament would have come away with a strong sense of the human factor in security operations. Surveillance is a very labour-intensive endeavour, vulnerable to human failings.
Resources are stretched too thin. There is human fatigue. Split seconds of inattention - the need to answer nature's call, say - may coincide with the precise moment a suspect chooses to make his escape. Officers feverishly scanning for a man with a limp may not give an elderly makcik in a tudung a second glance.
Any of these or other human lapses could have serious security implications. Security officers should of course be always vigilant and professional. But the truth is they are human and prone to error.
But human failure, however understandable, must still be accounted for, and steps taken to minimise its occurrence. In this context, it bears repeating that Singapore is made safe not only by the actions of a few, but also the coherent working together of many.
One lesson from the Mas Selamat escape is how to make sure the whole - including those on the ground - coheres. If the failures were due to human error, can more be done to reduce their occurrence by the humans involved, especially those at the lower rungs of the services who may be over-stretched or fatigued?
The third notable factor about Mr Shanmugam's disclosures in Parliament was the sheer amount of grey in his account: The family helping Mas Selamat committed an offence in harbouring a fugitive. Muslim leaders say this is un-Islamic. But in private conversations across Singapore yesterday, many people wondered if they would have done any differently if a family member turned up at their doorstep, tired, hungry, dishevelled, begging for shelter.
This is a classic moral dilemma - the conflict between loyalty to kin and duty as citizens to report a fugitive. Legal systems recognise the primordial pull of family ties.
One Malay MP asked Mr Shanmugam if the jail sentences of three to 18 months for the relatives harbouring Mas Selamat were too lenient. The sentences were decided by the courts, the minister noted, adding that the court was 'likely to have given weight to the fact that the assistance was not premeditated' and that the three appeared to have acted on 'misguided instincts of family ties on the spur of the moment'.
In the United States, 14 states including Florida, Massachusetts and Wisconsin protect family members who harbour fugitives from prosecution. Another four permit prosecution on reduced liability. Some state legislatures have tried to remove or dilute these laws. They have been subject to legal challenge as there is no similar federal law.
In this context, the sentences of the three family members seem reasonable, poised as they were between the need to punish an offence against the state and an acknowledgement of the depth of family ties.
This is by no means the last chapter of the Mas Selamat saga. Questions as to how he made his way out of Singapore or from the detention centre to his brother's home in Tampines remain. If the answers are forthcoming, they may feature the same tale of security breaches caused by human lapses.
But human error should not become all too easy an excuse for failure. One mistake may be an error. Two may be bad luck. Three suggest the possibility of system failures.
The challenge is to minimise human errors to the point of insignificance, and to look behind the spate of errors to figure out if there is anything in the system that needs to be fixed.
[email protected]
Family ties pose moral dilemma; human lapses must be accounted for
By Chua Mui Hoong, Deputy Review Editor
THE news that dominated conversations yesterday was, not surprisingly, the revelation in Parliament of how family members of terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah leader Mas Selamat Kastari helped him after his escape.
Mas Selamat broke free from the Whitley Road Detention Centre on Feb 27, 2008. He turned up at the flat of his brother, sister-in-law and niece two days later. They sheltered him for one night, fed him, gave him money, helped disguise him with make-up and a tudung (head scarf) and sent him on his way. He eventually fled Singapore for Malaysia.
The salient details disclosed by Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam on Monday prompted a barrage of questions from MPs and Singaporeans.
Why weren't Mas Selamat's entry and exit from his brother's flat in Tampines detected? Surely the flat was under surveillance?
The answer in short: Security agencies were strapped. His extended family members totalled more than 100. Hundreds more were known contacts.
How come security officers who interviewed the family two days after Mas Selamat left the flat on March 1, 2008 did not ferret out the truth from them?
Answer: It is not so easy to get people to reveal things they want to hide, unless you have prior information to confront them with.
Mr Shanmugam valiantly explained the factors surrounding the incident in a neutral manner, without unduly justifying away mistakes, and without undue finger-pointing. His was a delicate position. Three factors stood out in his handling of the matter.
The first was timeliness: The trio who helped Mas Selamat were sentenced on Nov 18, last Thursday. Mr Shanmugam briefed the House on Nov 22, Monday - at the first parliamentary opportunity that presented itself.
The second was candour: As Mr Shanmugam dealt with MPs' probing questions, the veil would have fallen from their eyes.
There is a myth about Invincible Singapore that often prevails. This says Singapore is well-protected, with very smart, very tough people using very sophisticated technology to keep Singapore safe.
This myth was punctured by Mas Selamat's escape. To be fair, as Mr Shanmugam stressed, the Internal Security Department was confident it would get Mas Selamat back - and it did, when information it provided contributed to his recapture in Malaysia in April last year. He is back in captivity in Singapore.
Those listening to Mr Shanmugam in Parliament would have come away with a strong sense of the human factor in security operations. Surveillance is a very labour-intensive endeavour, vulnerable to human failings.
Resources are stretched too thin. There is human fatigue. Split seconds of inattention - the need to answer nature's call, say - may coincide with the precise moment a suspect chooses to make his escape. Officers feverishly scanning for a man with a limp may not give an elderly makcik in a tudung a second glance.
Any of these or other human lapses could have serious security implications. Security officers should of course be always vigilant and professional. But the truth is they are human and prone to error.
But human failure, however understandable, must still be accounted for, and steps taken to minimise its occurrence. In this context, it bears repeating that Singapore is made safe not only by the actions of a few, but also the coherent working together of many.
One lesson from the Mas Selamat escape is how to make sure the whole - including those on the ground - coheres. If the failures were due to human error, can more be done to reduce their occurrence by the humans involved, especially those at the lower rungs of the services who may be over-stretched or fatigued?
The third notable factor about Mr Shanmugam's disclosures in Parliament was the sheer amount of grey in his account: The family helping Mas Selamat committed an offence in harbouring a fugitive. Muslim leaders say this is un-Islamic. But in private conversations across Singapore yesterday, many people wondered if they would have done any differently if a family member turned up at their doorstep, tired, hungry, dishevelled, begging for shelter.
This is a classic moral dilemma - the conflict between loyalty to kin and duty as citizens to report a fugitive. Legal systems recognise the primordial pull of family ties.
One Malay MP asked Mr Shanmugam if the jail sentences of three to 18 months for the relatives harbouring Mas Selamat were too lenient. The sentences were decided by the courts, the minister noted, adding that the court was 'likely to have given weight to the fact that the assistance was not premeditated' and that the three appeared to have acted on 'misguided instincts of family ties on the spur of the moment'.
In the United States, 14 states including Florida, Massachusetts and Wisconsin protect family members who harbour fugitives from prosecution. Another four permit prosecution on reduced liability. Some state legislatures have tried to remove or dilute these laws. They have been subject to legal challenge as there is no similar federal law.
In this context, the sentences of the three family members seem reasonable, poised as they were between the need to punish an offence against the state and an acknowledgement of the depth of family ties.
This is by no means the last chapter of the Mas Selamat saga. Questions as to how he made his way out of Singapore or from the detention centre to his brother's home in Tampines remain. If the answers are forthcoming, they may feature the same tale of security breaches caused by human lapses.
But human error should not become all too easy an excuse for failure. One mistake may be an error. Two may be bad luck. Three suggest the possibility of system failures.
The challenge is to minimise human errors to the point of insignificance, and to look behind the spate of errors to figure out if there is anything in the system that needs to be fixed.
[email protected]
