[LEFT: Lawyer Amolat Singh says sensitive security details will be revealed. RIGHT: Trial Terror expert Sidney Jones says public will be educated as details emerge.]

by Ho Lian-yi

CLOSED-DOOR handling of his case or have an open trial?

Now that Mas Selamat Kastari is once again in custody, the next question is: How should Singapore deal with him when the terrorist is handed over by the Malaysians?

Lock him up and throw away the keys, said many in a street poll conducted earlier by The New Paper.

He is, after all, the leader of a terrorist organisation with a bloody record. And he might be beyond rehabilitation - taking into account his bold escape from Singapore and his alleged plots to hit Singapore while in hiding.

Under Singapore's Internal Security Act (ISA), he can be detained indefinitely.

And there is sufficient evidence to convict him of crimes that can put him in jail for a long time.

So, what are the pros and cons of each approach? Lawyers and terrorism analysts were split in their views.

Dr John Harrison, assistant professor at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said: 'What the ISA does is allow the state to punish that individual without deepening the potential damage by giving the person a forum with a trial.'

And by denying them a trial, you deny them a chance to gain what lawyer Amolat Singh called 'pseudo-sympathisers'.

'You give a terrorist an audience, which is sometimes all they need to sway opinions and emotions,' he said.

When a person goes to trial, the prosecution has to produce all the necessary evidence, which the defendant can question.

Mr Singh said that in cases which touch on national security and intelligence - especially cross-border intelligence - it is not in the public interest to have the details brought to light.

The authorities may not want to spill the beans on their methods and their sources.

They would also want to prevent others from copying Mas Selamat's methods.

But just because it's not in court doesn't mean there is no evidence, he said.

Whenever anyone is detained, the evidence is looked at by a detention committee which can concur or disagree with the minister.

Lawyer Shashi Nathan said it might not be in society's best interest to have a trial if there is an ongoing threat or involves sensitive investigations which can take months and years.

He said: 'The Internal Security Department and the agencies have Singapore's national security uppermost in their minds. We just have to trust them on how they go about their work, as they are privy to information we don't have.'

Everyone deserves a trial

Lawyer Foo Cheow Ming, who was a prosecutor for seven years before entering private practice in 1999, said he is against detention without trial.

Officers of the court should not lose faith in the court, he said. For him, the entitlement to a trial is a fundamental human right, and a keystone or hallmark of a civilised society.

'The more heinous the accusation, the more you should let him have his say in a court of law,' he said.

He pointed out that there are provisions in the Penal Code for the accusations made against Mas Selamat, such as conspiring to murder, hijack planes and vandalise.

Even the Nazis, he said, were allowed to have trials.

He said: 'Are you saying Mas Selamat is more guilty than a Nazi war criminal?'

As for the potential risks of exposing sources, he noted that in the Northern Ireland terrorism trials, witnesses went to the stand wearing masks and spoke through voice distorters, but they still had to testify, produce documents and have their testimony tested for consistency and corroboration in a court of law.

He added that in Singapore, we have a highly-rated judiciary, with competent and decent people who are 'beyond reproach'.

'We trust these people to judge our children, so why can't they judge Mas Selamat?' he said.

Defeat him in open court

Ms Sidney Jones of the International Crisis Group, who has researched terror groups in South-east Asia, said she did not believe there is any advantage in detaining someone without a trial.

Referring to the terror trials in Indonesia, she said: 'The trials have been critical to gathering information government interrogators may not have thought to ask.'

The trials have also been an 'immense public education exercise', she added.

Prior to the trials, there were huge numbers of conspiracy theories, with some people believing that the first Bali bombing was done by the CIA and the Mossad, she said.

It was only after the trials, with the evidence presented, that most came face-to-face with the reality of homegrown terror.

'The region still has many conspiracy theories on how Mas Selamat escaped - it's good for everyone to know what the real story is,' she said.

As long as there is a good prosecutor and good witnesses, one does not have to worry about terrorists winning hearts and minds.

'I don't think any trials that took place in Indonesia benefited the defendants,' she said.