'ISA still relevant and crucial to S'pore's security'

The Internal Security Act (ISA) continues to be “relevant and crucial” as a last resort to ensure Singapore’s national security, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) stressed on Friday.

The law is used to tackle threats such as subversion, racial and religious extremism as well as cases involving espionage and terrorism.

“These threats continue to be salient today, especially in the last ten years against the threat of terrorism, where the government’s priority is to act swiftly to prevent an attack from taking place,” it noted.
 
MHA had on Monday announced that three Singaporeans were detained under the ISA between January and July for terrorist-related activities.

It highlighted that the law is only used “sparingly” and that “no person has ever been detained only for their political beliefs”.

The ministry's latest comments come a day after Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak announced that his government will repeal the controversial ISA law.

In his Merdeka Speech – equivalent to Singapore's National Day Rally – PM Najib said the move was aimed towards having a “modern, mature and functioning democracy”.

MHA, however, pointed to the differences between the ISA law in Singapore and Malaysia, although it may have originated from the time both countries were colonised by the British.

In Singapore, an individual arrested under this law may be held in custody for up to 30 days after which an Order of Detention or Restriction Order must be issued or else the person must be released unconditionally.

On the other hand, the period of custody is up to 60 days in Malaysia.

In addition, Singapore’s elected president has had the power since 1991 to veto the government’s decision to detain an individual if the ISA Advisory Board recommends the detainee's release.

“This was an additional safeguard enacted by the Singapore government to prevent misuse of the Act,” MHA said.

In December 2001, arrests made under the ISA foiled imminent suicide bombings against establishments in Singapore, planned by Al-Qaeda members who were assisted by several Jemaah Islamiyah members.

This, said the ministry, prevented the loss of innocent lives.

Debate whether S'pore should abolish ISA

Meanwhile, political observers were divided whether the country should review the ISA legislation and take its cue from Malaysia.

Dr Ooi Kee Beng, senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, said that since Singapore rarely uses the law, there might not be a need to follow its neighbour’s footsteps.

“The claim now is that detention without trial will be used only against terrorist suspects. This is in practice, also the limit on the use of the ISA in Singapore nowadays. In that sense, I don’t see why the Singapore government would copy Malaysia’s move.”

He also pointed out it is yet to be revealed what the ISA will be replaced with in Malaysia and there are still laws in place to allow detention without trial.

Still, he said, Singapore should discuss the “humanitarian, emotional and psychological” effects for the nation in retaining such a law permanently.

On the other hand, NUS political scientist Dr Reuben Wong said the legislation should be reviewed as the country’s ministers had previously said they would “reconsider if Malaysia scrapped it”.

He added that Malaysia’s move to repeal the ISA will spark debate over its relevance in Singapore, especially in view of its use in 1963 Operation Cold Store and 1987 Operation Spectrum.

Political activists have claimed that in those cases, the law was used on individuals who were critical of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) government.

Observers agreed that the government should seek out other form of legislation which can be used to deal with those involved in terrorism.

Dr Ooi said security fears about repealing this law should be considered alongside the availability and effectiveness of other legislation that can be used to tackle terrorist suspects.

Dr Wong said the ISA should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances.

“Many democratic states such as the United States and the European states have specific laws against extremism (Nazi ideas, holocaust denial and suspected terrorist links), but with greater powers of judicial review.

“There is no reason why Singapore should not consider such specific laws,” he said.