Amrozi death penalty: Region on edge of terror

The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok

The nerves of the intelligence agencies are stretched taut as repercussions are feared from Thursday's death verdict.

Shouting "God is greatest" as he entered the courtroom to hear whether he would live or die, Indonesian Islamic militant Amrozi showed no sign of straying from his conviction that justified the lives he had taken -- even after his death sentence was announced.

Dubbed the "laughing bomber" for his indifference to his victims, the mechanic was the first of 34 people to meet their fate for his involvement in the bombing of two crowded Bali nightclubs that killed more than 200 people.

Though the echo of his laughter could not be heard in Thailand, the chill he produces can be felt here in Bangkok, a city that anti-terrorist experts say has plenty of "soft targets".

Since June, when Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra declared war on global terrorism by announcing the arrest of three Thai Muslims who authorities said were plotting a series of bombing attacks against Western embassies in Thailand, security and intelligence agencies have been working tirelessly to make sure the charges stick.

The latest development involved sending a team of interrogators to Singapore to interview Arifin bin Ali, a suspected member of Jamaah Islamiyah (JI) who has been linked to four Thai nationals currently detained by the court pending legal charges from the police.

Arifin was apprehended last May in Bangkok and was quickly whisked back to Singapore where he is wanted for planning a number of terrorist attacks.

It is not clear if Arifin, also known as John Wong Ah Hung, will be extradited to Thailand. What is certain is that the authorities are looking to make the most of his admission that he was working with four Thai suspects to plan these alleged attacks.

Whether Arifin's statement will lead to convictions remains to be seen. So far, police have yet to produce a tangible piece of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspects in custody are guilty of the crime.

Nevertheless, it is generally understood that it was a good thing for the government to come clean and admit that Thailand is not immune to terrorist attacks. Indeed, for two years the government has consistently dismissed suggestions from local and foreign media of JI suspects entering and leaving the country at will.

Sources say the government went through some serious soul searching before deciding to admit to the JI presence in the country. They say it took eight months after Singapore had made the request for Arifin's apprehension before Thai authorities acted.

One intelligence officer told The Nation they wanted to be certain that all parties understood that such a move would have political consequences.

According to Singapore's Home Ministry, Arifin went into hiding in Thailand in January 2002 where he remained until his extradition. It said Arifin has disclosed to the government that he is involved with "a group of like-minded individuals in planning terrorist attacks against certain targets in Thailand".

"Five foreign embassies including the Singapore embassy in Bangkok were among those targeted. This information was subsequently conveyed to the Thai authorities. The Thai and Singapore authorities are working closely in the ongoing investigations," the statement said.

While it was agreed that Bangkok's decision to come clean was preferable, changing tracks came with a price. Many in the intelligence community are wondering if this new political tack will produce much-needed technical and logistic support.

During his recent visit to Thailand, the professor Zachary Abuza of Simmons College, Boston, said enhancing law enforcement can do wonders to contain terrorists' movements.

Improving immigration procedures, establishing a financial intelligence unit to look after banking regulations and cracking down on arms and people smuggling, as well as fighting document forgery, are some measures that need immediate attention.

Thai intelligence officials say they don't have the same privileges as their Singaporean counterparts, pointing to the International Security Act (ISA) -- which permits authorities to detain suspects indefinitely without trial -- and financial resources.

They often cited the Singaporean lesson as an example of how a pro-active anti-terrorism policy can put the public at ease and turn the authorities into a source of comfort for the people.

The debate in Thailand, on the other hand, is about how to imitate the Singaporean success without scaring everybody out of their socks.