Basket.

In the papers today: yet another report on terror, a dangerous new trend and even more reasons why we should be running scared. This time, a well-educated lawyer turned to religious extremism after being negatively influenced over the Internet. He has since been arrested and detained under the Internal Security Act.

As usual, the article focused on how this is a serious and disturbing new trend all good Singaporeans should be wary of, rather than reassuring us that it was an isolated incident (almost certainly the case) that has been swiftly and efficiently dealt with. Sadly, this is not unfamiliar these days, when governments the world over seem to prefer to concentrate on inculcating fear into their citizens, rather than genuinely working on meeting the needs of the people.

Our government is emphatically not an exception. The Internal Security Department, euphemistically referred to as an "intelligence agency" in public dispatches, is Singapore's secret police. It is responsible for dealing with domestic threats against our sovereignity, and the infamous piece of legislation it is charged with upholding is the Internal Security Act. A holdover from the days of the Emergency, this archaic set of regulations allows arrest without a warrant and indefinite detention without trial - blatant deprivation of civil liberties. For well over half a century it has been unnecessary but kept in place, being used to snuff out (dubious) threats to our well-being from time to time; most recently, of course, against the Jemaah Islamiyah militant group.

It is the common practice of authoritarian governments to claim that they are merely protecting the people, and that a price to pay must be the loss of certain basic human rights; only that these are often labelled "privileges". The Ministry of Home Affairs has itself claimed to be "protect[ing] [the] people [of Singapore] from the threat of terrorism" (MHA White Paper - The Jemaah Islamiyah Arrests and The Threat of Terrorism, published Jan 2003). The reasoning is simple: the more afraid the people are, the more willing they are to give up the rights they are entitled to, and thus all the more power to the government. The basic rule of governance is all but forgotten: governments exist to serve the people.

After decades of fending off domestic and international challenges to the ISA, the Singapore government was presented with a godsend in the form of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. The graphic live images of a devastating assault on the financial heart of America silenced the critics and left our government quietly triumphant. In the new global climate of fear, similar legislation was to come into place in the liberal democracies of Western Europe and America. At a stroke, 19 young Arab men reverted the world to a state of fearful calm reminiscent of the Cold War; worse, as the enemy was far more intangible and yet potentially far more dangerous than Soviet SS-20s. The ISA would be here to stay.

Shortly thereafter, its existence was further justified with revelations of a plot by the JI to attack key targets, including Western embassies, in Singapore. Despite the amateurishness of the conspiracy, MHA concluded that there was a serious threat to our national security. Further arrests in 2002 lent weight to the perception. A siege mentality began to form, which since then has continued to take shape and harden. This latest report is just one more example.

Whatever happened to governments working to meet the basic needs of the people? It seems to have been replaced, particularly in recent years and especially in the last century, with creating bogeymen to cow populaces into quiet submission. Our government is not alone in this regard - anti-terror legislation throughout the world has resulted in the curtailment of civil liberties. Governments, instead of reassuring their people, are encouraging their fear. This is not good governance; this is abuse of power.

George Orwell, in 1984, saw it all coming: the totalitarian government of Big Brother has created an implacable opponent, Goldstein, using this image to instill fear and obedience in the people. The parallels are obvious: the shadowy threat of world terrorism is Goldstein - it may or may not be a clear and present danger, but WHAT IF IT IS? Most people would rather not take the chance, and this is where governments step in, tell them how serious it really is and they should always be on their guard, and that the only ways to deal with this monstrous threat is to give up more power to those who rule them.

What we currently have, then is a global regression of freedom. The fall of the USSR in 1991 was supposed to be the End of History and the triumph of liberal democracy. Yet it seems that governments these days are simply incapable of ruling by the proper principles of governance. Instead of working for the people, they are increasingly making the people work for them. Political leaders of today have little real contact with those they rule: as Paul Johnson points out, government in the 19th century was a remarkably open affair. Successive Prime Ministers of Britain went for solitary morning strolls around London, tipping their hats at common men in the street; Thomas Jefferson personally received callers at the White House and welcomed letters personally addressed to him - to which he wrote his own replies. These days, we cannot imagine anything like that happening. Governments have universally grown into vast, bloated bureaucracies, out of touch with those they are supposed to govern, and as a result losing sight of the fact that their main preoccupation should be with serving the people as well as they can.

The maintenance of this facade of a threat can get farcical. Local examples abound. Just this year, a family missed their holiday to Australia because of an innocent remark that just happened to include the word "bomb". An airport security officer even told her she could go to jail for using that dreaded b-word. Ok, let us test that out:

BOMB.

BOMB. BOMB. BOMB. BOMB. BOMB. BOMB. BOMB.


Right, that ought to earn me a few years inside. In my opinion that officer should have been sacked for gross incompetence, and the entire staff of that section given a good upbraiding. Instead, a proper public apology through the press was not even issued. So now those responsible for our safety can get away with plain stupidity? Well, I sure feel safe now! Oh but wait, that isn't the point, is it. Maybe the government is smarter than I thought.

In addition, heavy sentences are routinely levied on those who make bomb hoaxes, most recently the Canadian who was jailed 44 months - which is more than three-and-a-half years. Whatever happened to ensuring the punishment fits the crime? Is that not one of the basic tenets of justice? Three-and-a-half years in jail for causing no harm to anyone, although plenty of inconvenience - it is completely ridiculous. But it certainly helps with this whole climate of fear act.

Anyone would be foolish to deny the existence of a real threat. But governments are overreacting. Disturbingly, this could be deliberate. In the meantime, we continue to drift further and further away from genuine good governance.