Both sets of reports have some similarities, such as fairly detailed accounts of the plots and plotters, the inclusion of photographs of evidence and exhortations to the community to be vigilant against terrorism. However, one should also bear in mind that the Singaporean documents relate to a plot that was foiled while the British set explores a plot that was successfully executed by the terrorists. This huge difference in the context increases differences between both sets of reports that already stem from a very different political and bureaucratic culture with respect to freedom of information, pluralism, as well as the centrality of the issue of racial harmony between Singapore and the UK.

Terminology

There is a striking difference in terminology relating to the subject matter. The JI White Paper uses the generic term "terrorism" though it acknowledges that the JI and its ilk "claim to act in the name of Islam" (p.1). The Fight Against Terror uses the term "transnational terrorism". In contrast, the ISC report describe the threat as "Islamist terrorism" and tells us that "this is the term used by the Security Service [more commonly known as MI5] and the police to describe the current threat from individuals who claim a religious justification for terrorism... Across the wider Government counter-terrorism community the threat is also referred to as 'international terrorism' or 'AQ-related' terrorism." (p.4)

Muslims as well as prominent international relations scholars, like Fred Halliday, strongly reject any linkage between Islam and terrorism, pointing out that there is nothing Islamic about terrorism. The terminology of the JI White Paper and The Fight Against Terror reflects such concerns. It has also been argued that linking the religion with acts of terror and terrorist groups plays into their hands by deepening mutual hostility and suspicion between Muslims and non-Muslims.

On the other hand, the British use of the term "Islamist terrorism" is not used thoughtlessly. It reflects a range of meanings of "Islamist" or "Islamism" (rather than "Islamic") in the academic literature that describes the use of Islam for political ends, including mobilising and justifying the political violence of terrorism. Certainly this is considerably less egregious than the horrid term "Islamofascism". While the Singaporean terminology is certainly more politically correct and much less likely to cause offence, the British term has higher specificity and is grounded in a particular vein of scholarly discourse relating to the use of Islam for various political ends. One supposes that the British also had to distinguish the current threat from other forms of terrorism, such as that motivated by Northern Irish separatism.

Information Release

The JI White Paper is certainly an admirable, if rare, example of information relating to security and intelligence matters in Singapore. Its account of the plot, profiling of the plotters and follow-up actions taken by the government contain much more detail than what we are normally accustomed to. In terms of the level of detail, it compares well with the 7/7 Report. One aspect that still puzzles me is how the Internal Security Department detected the JI plot. The JI White Paper tells us that the "first specific lead... came from a Singaporean." (p.26) There is no indication if this Singaporean was a regular informant being handled by ISD or it was a fortituous cold call from a concerned member of the public. Certainly at least one major terrorist plot was discovered, more or less, by accident. Related to this is how the JI cell in Singapore had been undetected for almost a dozen years despite having been set up around 1988-89 by Ibrahim Maidin (p.10).

The Fight Against Terror gives a useful update on the restructuring of the national security bureaucracy but it seems very much a public relations coffee table book (complete with colourful photographs) than an actual working document that practitioners will refer to in the course of formulating and executing policies. In all fairness, The Fight Against Terror was almost certainly published for the former rather than the latter purpose.

The ISC Report, on the other hand, is an important document that has been declassified (with sensitive parts cut out and replaced with asterisks) and released in accordance with a more liberal interpretation of public interest and freedom of information. Intelligence buffs will find it to be a fascinating exploration of the nature and limitations of intelligence. It also shows that it is entirely feasible to discuss sensitive security and intelligence policies while preserving operational security (secrecy of sources, modus operandi and weakeness yet to be remedied).

Parliamentary Oversight

Both the JI White Paper and ISC Report were tabled to the respective Parliaments. Probably a large factor in the release of the former is the preservation of racial harmony, something that was emphasized repeatedly in the course of the parliamentary debate on the JI White Paper.

Although the terrorists pulled off the 7/7 bombings, the ISC Report did not find any significant failures on the part of the intelligence and security agencies in failing to detect and stop the plot; nonetheless it expressed concerns over the functioning of the UK national threat level system and how the ringleader was not thoroughly investigated despite having appeared on the periphery of an earlier and separate investigation. Furthermore it discusses tangible policy issues like intelligence assessment procedures, revision of requirements and priorities as well as changes to the levels of funding for counter-terrorism. It is an altogether meatier and weightier document, especially when compared to The Fight Against Terrorism.

Conclusion

Nonetheless it is to the credit of both the Singaporean and British governments that such reports on terrorism and national security have been publicly published. Such transparency plays an important part into keeping the public informed, putting down lessons learnt and laying the foundation for future discussion and policy-making. Both sets of documents also show how Islamist terrorism in Singapore and the UK have similar features in terms of recruitment and radicalisation, tactical methods and the measures taken to counter them which I hope to explore in the future.