I would like to thank IISS for inviting me here to this year's Shangri-La Dialogue to speak on the topic of "Defence, Intelligence, and the Campaign against Terrorism".
Let me begin with an observation that the world is now united in acknowledging the need for a campaign against terror. We have had some early successes. We are seeing greatly improved levels of cooperation and information sharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Countries are building up their respective intelligence capabilities. We are working together to hunt down remnants of the Al-Qaeda and its extended networks not only in Afghanistan but also in other parts of Asia. We are cooperating to dismantle the logistics and financial infrastructure of terrorists. We have strengthened our vigilance and beefed up security domestically and abroad. We are constantly on the alert against new terrorist threats, including on the seas, and devising appropriate surveillance and preventive measures.
Malaysia is at one with the world community in this global campaign. The arrests and detentions of Jemaah Islamiah suspects and figures associated with the international nuclear black market demonstrate our commitment to this cause. We will continue to cooperate with all governments without compromising on the legitimate rights and sovereignty of others and our own.
Malaysia is a small, moderate, peaceful and Islamic country. Like millions of Muslims and non-Muslims around the world, we reject the distorted rhetoric and despicable acts of terror committed in the name of Islam. We, like most of the free world, want to seek ways to end this terror. But like many in the developing and emerging world, we are also concerned that powerful states may not be going about this campaign in ways that will win the hearts and minds of millions of ordinary people around the world, and build- a- lasting peace-for aft. Malaysiaa has been acknowledged as a helpful and constructive critic of the way the campaign against terror has been executed.
Let me address directly some comments that have been made recently at this Conference. Countries in Southeast Asia have been urged to join the United States-led campaign against terror. September 11 was a terrible shock to the civilised world, both in terms of the enormous loss of life, and in terms of the terrorists' audacity to strike at the very heart of the most powerful nation on earth. America reacted in the ways that only a superpower could - it pursued the terrorists all the way into the mountains of Afghanistan, and proceeded to neutralise what it felt was the next emerging threat to its security - the alleged WMDs in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In the process, it came to terms with the existence of a new and non-conventional threat to its own domestic security.
The reality in Southeast Asia is that we have been waging our own campaign against terror for a long time.
The insurgencies in and armed conflicts in the southern Philippines, in Indonesia, in southern Thailand, in Cambodia and in Malaysia, have cost the region thousands of innocent lives, and for some countries, the body counts continue even as we speak. These conflicts all predate America's own experience of terror in their midst.
The question to ask is not whether we in Southeast Asia will ioin this global campaign against terror, or when we will do so, because we already have. What is more instructive is to understand how we in Southeast Asia have gone about trying to address these threats. While our aims are one and the same with the rest of the free world, that is to secure peace and security for our citizens, our methods may vary according to individual circumstances and local conditions.
Terrorism cannot be bombed away into submission. What may have worked in Afghanistan, in Sudan, in Yemen, in Iraq, will not work in Malaysia. I doubt whether it will be acceptable for many of our ASEAN neighbours. Instead, tackling terrorism requires denvinq militancy of its psychological oxygen of hatred, mistrust and deprivation. Malaysia has had experience in dealing with domestic forms of terrorism and extremism. Addressing these threats has required us to use a judicious mix of hard and soft power. Military force and preventive detentions under the Internal Security Act have been used against perpetrators, in particular when they have or are about to engage in armed conflict. But in tandem with this approach, we have also used soft power as demonstrated by our willingness to address underlying legitimate issues that may give credence to the actions of such groups.
A useful example of this approach was the manner in which Malaysia addressed and resolved the Communist threat within our borders. We did not resolve this threat through brutal retaliation. Through a concerted nation-wide effort, we quarantined local villagers who supported the Communists by cordoning them in secure New Villages. We offered amnesty programmes for insurgents to coax them into laying down their weapons. And we kept track of the progress of our own "campaign against terror", designating areas as being White or Black in light of the rise and fall of the communist danger in the area.
Our success at defeating this Communist threat was also because the Government addressed the root causes of the conflict that allowed the Communists to gain support from some sections of our population. Here, we relied extensively on psychological operations and human intelligence resources. A peaceful settlement to gain independence from the British meant that the Communists could no longer claim they were freedom fighters opposed to colonial occupation. The difficult but enlightened political decision to grant citizenship to some 1 million immigrant Chinese removed another crucial root cause of the conflict and sapped support for the Communist Party of Malaya among the Chinese population.
The Malaysian experience with militant Islam is another powerful reminder of the need for a balanced approach in our campaiqn aqainst terrorism. The Sauk incident in 2000 involving the AI-Maunah group in our northern jungles was a test of our resolve and fortitude. We gave them every chance to surrender.
And when the time came for us to act, we acted swiftly and surely. All were brought to trial and received a fair hearing. Where appropriate we provided rehabilitation, counselling and eventual reintegration of these individuals into mainstream society. At all times, the Government carefully maintained the support of the Malaysian public for our handling of the situation.
Our neighbours in ASEAN are pursuing similar approaches to deal with terrorist threats. As a response to the incidents in southern Thailand, Prime Minister Thaksin has committed to an ambitious economic development plan to create 100,000 jobs within three years and provide more opportunities for higher education and local decision-making. Idle minds are the devil's workshop. Economic and social mobility of Thai Muslims will go a long way to strengthening Thailand as a cohesive, dynamic and prosperous nation.
Malaysia has worked with the Thai Government to provide vocational skills training to youths from these affected regions. We have also offered to send Muslim scholars and preachers to southern Thailand to share Malaysia's experience and practice of progressive Islam. Likewise in the southern Philippines, we are working with the Government to establish joint monitoring groups to bring about a ceasefire in that troubled region.
Southeast Asia has never and will never make separate peace with terrorists and extremists. America need not be concerned. But we continue to be open and honest and confident enough to examine the underlying issues that give rise to these acts of terror in our midst, and work to resolve them as best as we can, so that the perpetrators of terror can no lonqer wrongly claim the moral hiqh qround for their actions.
There have been suggestions that the United States should play a deeper role in Southeast Asia in our campaign against terror. We should definitely expand our cooperation with the United States and others, in terms of the acquiring and sharing of quality intelligence. We should collaborate on the latest intelligence techniques and surveillance technology. We should work together to choke the financial and logistics networks of terrorist groups. Granted there is much more that countries in this region can do to work together in addressing the terrorist threat. We can and should redouble our efforts to deepen our cooperation in the vital areas of defence, law enforcement and intelligence.
However, what we should avoid is the presence of foreign forces in Southeast Asia to help us deal with this threat, not because we distrust those from outside the region, but because foreign military presence will set us back in our ideological battle against extremism and militancy. The lessons of Iraq should be clear to us: ill prepared liberators do make mistakes and the failure of good intentions can cause great damage to social and political stability.
Political freedom and economic progress are great bulwarks against terrorism. As a modern and moderate Muslim country, Malaysia has proven that militancy and radical Islam can be defeated through the ballot box. In the recent 11th General Elections, the ruling coalition - the Barisan Nasional - won yet another resounding victory. We secured 90% out of 219 contested parliamentary seats. The Opposition, which includes the radical Malaysian Islamic Party or PAS, was soundly defeated in elections. As testament to Malaysia's political maturity, opposition parties, even those nominally Islamist, continue to abide by democratic rules and do not resort to extra-democratic methods.
One critical factor in our ability to defeat militant extremists has been Malaysia's success in balancing economic growth with social equity. A large and growing middle class, compromising of Malay Muslims, Malaysian Chinese and Indians, has ensured that radical Islam remains marginalized. The government's emphasis on providing the broadest educational opportunities, balancing economic growth and job creation across regions, streamlining religious instruction, ensuring equitable infrastructure development, and projectinq the true meaning of Islam, are all important defences against radicalism.
It is no surprise that terrorism has taken root in some of the poorest regions in the Muslim world. It is therefore in the interests of the most advanced economies of the world, to ensure that these countries are able to achieve balanced, sustained economic growth on the back of an industrious, skilled population with middle class sensibilities. Only then can we begin to extinguish the fire of extremism in these societies.
As a final remark, let me acknowledge what many in this room may be thinking at this point. Is there a link between Islam and terrorism, given that so many terrorist groups seem to use Islam as their rallying cry? Perhaps there is one, but only because we have allowed such terrorist groups to combine their purely domestic grievances with the larger injustices committed against Muslims in the Middle East. This heady cocktail creates a powerful perception that the world is against Islam, and against Muslims everywhere. The injustices committed against the Palestinian people appear crystal clear to over 1 billion Muslims around the world, and yet there are countries that continue to promote an imbalanced view of this long running conflict.
In trying to wage this campaign against terrorism, I believe we can only truly succeed if we are prepared to combine the hard and soft elements of power. We must invest as much in understanding the enemy as we are in the technology that is used to crush them. We must be equally committed to address the underlying, legitimate grievances that allow for such extremists to gain support from the wider population, as we are quick to seek out and destroy these groups in the far corners of the world.
Prime Minister Goh is absolutely correct when he observed at the start of this Conference that the fight against terrorism is both an ideological and a geopolitical struggle. Our campaign in Southeast Asia has long recognised this truth. He is right that the United States has found it hard to lead the ideological struggle and has often resorted to geopolitical instruments of power. Let there be no doubt, there is more to come if we continue to ignore the need for a balanced approach to this campaiqn against terror. We should make the adjustments now.
