THE news on television last Friday night and in the newspapers on Saturday morning of the discovery of the body of 28-year-old Ms Lo Hwei Yen, a Singapore lawyer, on the 17th floor of the Oberoi Trident hotel in Mumbai shocked and angered me immensely. Why kill an innocent young woman who had the whole world before her?

Full Story

Erh?
Thanks captain obvious?

Lionel,

"If Ms Lo was killed by her captors who held her hostage, I believe they did so because she was Singaporean. It is no secret that terrorist groups that are affiliated with Al-Qaeda have a deep-rooted hatred of Singapore because of its relentless fight against terrorism, and the incarceration of members of Jemaah Islamiah under the Internal Security Act."

The Singapore govt at the onset of the incident issued a statement supporting India/Mumbai against the terrorists. And it was subsequently reported that Ms Lo was tasked by the terrorists to deliver a message to the Singapore govt asking it to tell the India govt to desist from actions against the terrorists as her survival depended on it (words to that effect).

Ms Lo delivered the message to her family which was conveyed to the Singapore govt, and according to the govt, it in turned conveyed it to the Indian govt.

A couple points are pertinent here, namely:

1. The public statement of the govt supporting India made early in the onset of the incident, I think, the very next day.
Why do we have to raise Singapore's profile like that? Yes, we support the global war against terrorism, but to wade in like that without (or was it with?) the knowledge that some of our citizens are on the spot?

It was no coincidence therefore that the terrorists singled her out to send the message which content as we all know was impossible to accomplish. It was to embarrass the govt as it had only days ago issued a statement supporting the Indians. So, how could it now turn around and ask the opposite?

MFA said the terrorists message was conveyed to India. But, what did it do it terms of working with India to secure her survival? Yes, it is a by no means certain thing, but did MFA at least try beyond acting as message boy on behalf of her and her family?

The tragedy points to a lot of thinking and re-thinking on the part of our govt with regards to its MO and MV as far as international terrorism is concerned in an environment where our nationals and citizens are expose to such risks. THE MFA owes it to Singaporean to re-examine and re-think its SOP.

In adopting America's because-their-culture-lacks-democracy/dynamism take on causes, are we being any less smug than those who kill wantonly in the name of faith ? Would this adopted/ borrowed ethnocentrism be any less a message/ medium of hate ?

Is our continuing fixation with an America responsible for at least hundreds of thousands of senseless deaths after WWII any different from the fixation of others with groups similarly responsible for senseless deaths ?

We can hide from these questions by saying that they "justify" indiscriminate killings. Or we can realise that questions like these need to be asked if we want to personally stop being part of a cycle that feeds on itself. It may not be a popular thing to say, especially now, but our own dubious standards makes us more complicit in this cycle than we care to admit.

Courtesy of wordsmith.org :

The person who's always waving the flag usually waives what it stands for - Laurence J Peter, educator/author (1919 - 1990).

I wasn't disturbing the peace, I was disturbing the war - Ammon Hennacy, activist (1893 - 1970).

Martyrdom has always been a proof of the intensity, never of the correctness of a belief - Arthur Schnitzler, writer/doctor (1862 - 1931).

The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while that of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one - William Stekel, physician/psychologist (1868 - 1940).

I'm not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I'm willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves REFUSE TO GO TO WAR - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955).

Thank you Mr Wong.Your eloquence speaks for me.I share your sentiments. I believe our government and our MFA should be more discreet in such sensitive issues.We cannot afford to play a major role on this world stage which features big boys with their own agendas.

Let us exercise great political diplomacy and keep a low profile. We are a small country - very vulnerable, very fragile and very tiny. So know our own limitations and we should not play dangerous games with the big boys on the world stage.

And we must learn to keep our mouth shut, our eyes open and our mind intact.Thank you.

Fighting in built-up areas is an onerous task. Just ask any poster who has done his NS & trained in FIBUA. Doing so in dark & smokey hotels, filled with terrorists who were armed to the teeth & not afraid to die with their hostages, & you can imagine the nightmare the Indian commandos had to surmount.

How can we be sure that Ms Lo was not killed by a bullet, from an Indian soldier, storming the room she was held in?

Eagle2004 #7

To be shot in the head requires the skill of a sniper who would be able to see his target through his scope. Is it possible, that the Indian soldiers were taking down hostages too? Or, are you suggesting that the terrorists had forced hostages to appear in front of windows to draw the snipers' deadly fire?

I feel that we are now in a spot.

If we keep our mouth uncharacteristically shut (we have our leaders to thank for this!), then it'd show we have been cowed by this unfortunate experience. The terrorists would have achieved what they set out to do.

But if we go on showing support for the anti-terrorists, then, well, we'll just have to get used to the idea that we could become terrorist targets.

If India and Pakistan fight, it would be better if we kept out of it.