COMMENT: ISA leaves important questions unanswered

The eight Bangladeshis who were arrested in April under Singapore’s Internal Security Act. (Photo: Ministry of Home Affairs)

The headlines exploded across news websites and social media. My SPH Breaking News alert subscription began to text me urgent Straits Times reports: “BREAKING: 8 Bangladeshis detained under S'pore’s ISA. They had set up a group called Islamic State in Bangladesh to overthrow govt back home”.

Like all other journalists, I had taken one look at the Ministry of Home Affairs press release and started writing up a report for my editors. In a country where the top news usually tends to the local, terms like “radicalised”, “detained” and “ISIS” meant that we finally had something that would get on an international news editor’s radar.

The story was duly filed: "The Ministry of Home Affairs said…”, “according to the ministry”, “claimed”, “alleged”… But so much was missing.

As journalists we are repeatedly reminded of the importance of getting the facts right, of verification and being sure of our sources. But what we all did when we wrote up our stories on the detained Bangladeshi nationals was not reporting – we only had the “facts” as dictated by the government in their press release, and no way of verifying anything ourselves. We simply had to take the government’s word for it, and to accept as little or as much as they were willing to tell us.

Reality check

This is the reality of the Internal Security Act (ISA). It gives plenty of power to the executive with little accountability, much less adequate checks and balances. The government arrests and detains, and trots out its reasons when it is ready.

In this case, the men were arrested in April, but the Ministry of Home Affairs had only seen fit to announce it in early May. There has been no explanation as to why this could not have been made known earlier. The information vacuum has even led some to wonder if the news had been carefully timed to be released just ahead of the by-election this weekend. After all, if the government could wait for about a month – the eight had been arrested between late March and early April – then surely it could have waited another week?

The government press statement, and its follow-up the next day, paints a clear picture of radicalisation and plans to carry out violent action in Bangladesh. It identifies a ringleader, and when the Islamic State in Bangladesh (ISB) group was founded. It says that documents were found listing potential targets, along with manuals on how to operate weaponry and build bombs. In late April, the group of eight were issued two-year detention orders under the ISA.

With such a damning list of evidence, it seems a little strange that the authorities would still be unable to put together a case that would stand up in a court of law. Surely, if the evidence were so persuasive, the men could be charged for their crimes and punished accordingly.

During our last Universal Periodic Review in Geneva earlier this year, Singapore described preventive detention without trial – such as the one specified under the ISA – as something that was used as “a last resort and only under exceptional circumstances to counter serious threats”. Why, then, would we need to use this “last resort” when there is supposedly so much proof that the men were engaged in terrorist activities and plotting violence?

It is, of course, important for countries to have measures to deal with radicalisation and terrorism of all stripes. But there are ways to counter terrorism without so much unchecked power. Open trials, where evidence is presented and deliberated, demonstrate that terrorist plots will not be tolerated, while assuring everyone that all communities are equally protected – and judged – under the law. This helps to allay the suspicion that particular groups are being targeted or profiled by the state in the name of security.

Learning from the past

In 1987, the ISA was invoked to stop a Marxist Conspiracy. Singaporeans were assured that those arrested had been plotting to overthrow the government. A ringleader was identified. Confessions were extracted, then aired publicly. The ISA was justified as a law that keeps Singapore safe.

Today, many of us know think of Operation Spectrum as a particularly shameful period of Singapore’s history. A documentary, 1987: Untracing the Conspiracy, is currently being screened, featuring the testimonies of a number of those who were detained. They talk about their arrest, their interrogation, the abuse they faced and the coerced confessions. But most Singaporeans were none the wiser at that time, and the media carried the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) press releases uncritically, with no other sources and no way to verify the facts.

This week, we were told that the ISA had been invoked to stop a radical jihad plot (which might have been carried out in Bangladesh). A ringleader was identified and evidence was laid out. The ISA was justified as a law that keeps Singapore safe. The media carried the MHA’s press releases uncritically, with no other sources and no way to verify the facts.

I am not saying that the government’s claims against this particular group of Bangladeshis were fabricated. They could very well be, and very likely are, the truth. But many Singaporeans probably thought the same in 1987. And by the time the truth came to light, it was far too late, and we were only left to ask, “How could this have happened?”

The danger of not knowing

The point about the ISA is that we simply do not know. We do not know because there is no requirement for the state to be accountable or open with what has happened. They have power over the arrests, the detention orders, the timing of press releases, who those press releases are first sent to, the amount of information to release and the amount of information to withhold.

Everything else is kept in a black box. Journalists find that we have become stenographers and press release paraphrasers. Singaporeans are not really informed. We do not actually know that we are safer. We cannot talk about whether there can be better, more effective methods to combat radicalisation. And Singapore is left vulnerable to the possibility of an abuse of power.

Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger and journalist. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own.