Duo dealt with under ISA not for supporting Palestine, but for supporting terrorism: Shanmugam
A student who wanted to join a militant group and a 33-year-old former public servant who advocated violence against Israelis and Jews were issued restriction orders under the Internal Security Act.
Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam speaking to the media on Jul 15, 2024.
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
SINGAPORE: Action was taken against two Singaporeans not for their support of the Palestinian cause, but for supporting terrorism and armed violence, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said.
A 14-year-old boy was issued a restriction order under the Internal Security Act (ISA) last month, while 33-year-old former public servant An’nadya An’nahari was issued one earlier this month. Both became radicalised after the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct 7.
A person under a restriction order is not allowed to change his or her residence or travel out of Singapore without the authorities' permission. They also cannot access the internet or social media without approval.
“Singaporeans are deeply concerned about the situation in Gaza, and rightly so," Mr Shanumgam told reporters on Monday (Jul 15).
"It's a massive humanitarian crisis affecting the Palestinians and many of us sympathise with the Palestinian cause. I sympathise with the Palestinian cause. They should have their own country and not suffer like this.
“But sympathy for any foreign cause cannot mean we can support or allow terrorism.”
The Singapore government has made clear its position on the Gaza crisis at international organisations, such as the United Nations, the minister said.
Many here who are deeply affected by the plight of Palestinians have shown their support in concrete ways, such as organising fundraising and sending humanitarian aid, he said.
Mr Shanmugam said the two cases show that overseas conflicts can affect Singapore internally, with extremist narratives threatening the country’s own national security and social harmony.
RISING YOUTH RADICALISATION
The rise of youth radicalisation here follows a global trend observed in other countries too, and is something that the Internal Security Department (ISD) will continue to address, he said.
Forty Singaporeans who were radicalised have been dealt with under the ISA since 2015. Of these, 13 were aged 20 or younger.
Mr Shamugam cited several cases of armed violence by radicalised youths around the world, including in Sydney and London. He said the ISD will continue working with community partners to counter youth radicalisation.
Anyone can be radicalised regardless of age, gender, religion or profession, Mr Shanmugam said.
“One was a young boy, a student, the other was an adult, who should have been more aware of the dangers of radicalisation, yet she was also vulnerable,” he said.
“ISD will take action against anyone in Singapore who supports, promotes or makes preparations to take up armed violence, regardless of how they rationalise that violence and regardless of where the violence takes place.”
POWERS OF DETENTION
As to why the two cases were issued with restriction and not detention orders, Mr Shanmugam said the "powers of detention obviously have to be exercised responsibly".
“That means that you need to look at cases individually and calibrate the orders imposed, in a way that deals with the assessment of the threat,” he said.
“So you shouldn't be detaining if your assessment is there's no necessity for detention. If it’s something lower, a restriction order would be enough.”
In response to CNA's queries, ISD said: "The ISA is used in a calibrated manner. Whether an individual warrants preventive detention or supervision under an RO (restriction order) is based on thorough investigations and an assessment as to the threat that the individual poses to Singapore’s security."
In the case of the 14-year-old boy, ISD noted his plan to join the Black Flag Army and conduct attacks against non-Muslims in Singapore were "aspirational at the point of his detection" and that he "did not have a concrete timeline to actualise his aspirations".
But while ISD had intervened in time, "preventing him from progressing further down the path of radicalisation", it added a restriction order was necessary, "given the extent of his radicalisation".
The restriction order would also "subject him to a strong supervision regime and includes interventions to counter his radical ideology".
As for An’nadya, ISD said that while she had no plans to engage in armed violence at the point of investigation, her staunch support for the AOR (Axis of Resistance) and their violent operations, incitements of violence against Israelis and Jews, and her dissemination of propaganda to promote its violent cause, "rendered her a security concern".
"She was thus issued with a RO to allow her activities to be closely monitored under a strong supervisory regime, and to undergo rehabilitation to address her radicalisation," ISD added.
Mr Shanmugam said the aim is to allow those under restriction orders to get on with their lives as far as possible, while at the same time moving them away from the path of radicalisation, hopefully with the help of friends and family.
There have however been cases in the past where a restriction order does not work, and the person returns to extremist activities and goes on to become more of a threat. Further orders are then issued, said Mr Shanmugam.
“To give an analogy, they were on a travellator that was travelling in one direction. ISD will have to assess how close they were to the destination, how serious and how imminent the threat was,” said Mr Shanmugam.
“And their assessment was that the restriction orders imposed were enough to get them to get off the travellator for the time being.”
