~by: Ghui~

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has issued a statement in response to calls for the abolition of the Internal Security Act (ISA) in Singapore by ex- ISA detainees (see HERE).

Pointing to the evolution of the ISA as Singapore’s circumstances, vulnerability and risk tolerance changes, the ministry stated that the “instrument of last resort” has enabled the nation to “counter serious security threats, protect our people, and preserve our racial harmony and social cohesion”.

Reiterating a point already made, the authority said, “It (the ISA) remains relevant and necessary in today’s evolving security environment, for keeping Singapore safe and secure” (see HERE).

There are other tools besides the ISA at Singapore’s disposal to combat this problem. Acts such as the Sedition Act, Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, Vandalism Act, the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act and the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act are all laws that can be effectively utilised to deal with the threat of terrorism. In fact, I would argue that these acts are more useful in dealing with the threat of terrorism because they target the problem more specifically. So if the combat of terrorism is the main justification for the retention of the ISA, then the ISA is superfluous.

The ISA has been criticised as opaque and vague. Indeed Section 8 of the ISA (see HERE) confers on the government the right to arrest and detain individuals without trial for up to two years at a time if the President is satisfied that to do so:

  1. would prevent that person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Singapore or any part thereof; or
  2. if such detention was for the maintenance of public order or essential services therein.

The wide way in which Section 8 is drafted is open to abuse because terms such as “prejudicial to the security of Singapore” or the “maintenance of public order” are subject to interpretation. Its retention therefore leaves Singaporeans in a situation whereby the most draconian sanctions can be imposed on an individual on the basis of an act which is subjective.

How can the ISA keep Singapore safe and secure if its citizens are unsure of its exact remit? When something is shrouded in mystery, people tend to worry and speculate. Far from keeping Singapore safe and secure, the ISA could arguably keep citizens fearful and anxious.

The ISA should be abolished in line with the fact that the threats of communists are a relic of the past. There are other laws in place that can deal with the security of our nation effectively.

Where an individual’s freedom can be arbitrarily taken away without trial, people need to know exactly where their boundaries lie. A law that imposes such a fearsome sanction has to be clear about what acts an individual needs to commit before he or she triggers that punishment. As it stands, the ISA ‘s ability to deprive one of his or her liberty without trial and without a clear list of transgressing crimes is outdated, unnecessary and unfair.


Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

CAN’s statement on the assault on Amos Yee

CAN believes that the conditions imposed on Yee are unnecessarily onerous. Apart from having to report to his Investigating Officer every day, he is also barred from posting anything online. This curtailment of Yee’s right to express himself doesn’t just infringe on his constitutional rights as a citizen, it is also disproportionate to the charges he is currently facing.

焦虑的主人寻猫记 “无论生死只盼回到身边”

最近闹得沸沸扬扬的寻猫报导,无论在社交媒体或是报章上都可以看到,有人或许觉得大惊小怪,但是身为猫咪的主人,焦虑的心情又是几人能体会。明知家中的毛孩子没有做错却要被冤枉带走,寻找多时,只传来了一只失踪一只死亡的消息,让人心力交瘁,而猫咪主人现在只求“Leng Leng回家”。 星期五深夜,这里大多数餐厅和商店几乎关闭的时段,在港湾中心(Harbourfront Centre)外面,新加坡文化遗产节的大荧幕还在放映着,但很多摊位已经准备收摊了。双层巴士正在通往巴士车站的路上,带着疲惫的通勤者回家。在这些喧哗中,一阵装着饼干的塑料容器摇晃声音响起,一名女人沿着这条路走,摇着塑料容器,低头在人行道上绿树成荫的灌木丛中喊道,“Leng Leng!Ah Leng!” 58岁的格蕾丝·陈(译音Grace Tan),过去两周都没放弃寻找Leng Leng,她从位于马林台的住家,一路南下到港湾中心,在行人道徘徊,一遍一遍地检查灌木丛和树丛中,一声一声的呼唤爱猫。 市镇会初时否认抓猫 2019年3月8日,格蕾丝自兼职工作中回到她位于马林台的租屋时,发现她的两只猫Ben Ben和Leng…

谈论何晶薪资 贝理安:如何损害公共利益?

4月19日,财政部长则援引《防假消息法》,对本社、 Temasek Review、网络论坛 HardwareZone的账号 “darksiedluv”和人民之声党领袖林鼎,发出更正指示。事缘这些人士谈及新加坡总理夫人兼淡马锡首席执行长何晶的薪资。 对此,工人党非选区议员贝理安(Leon Perera)在国会质问,依据《防假消息法》第四条文有关“公共利益”的定义,谈论何晶薪资,如何损害公共利益? 财政部兼教育部第二部长英兰妮代表财长王瑞杰答复。但后者指出,有鉴于此议题已提呈法庭,为此不适合在国会回答此问题。 早前,针对更正指示,本社已向财政部提出上诉,不过后者拒绝撤回更正指示。随后,本社在上月29日已转而向高庭作出申请上诉。 事缘台湾东森新闻评论节目《关键时刻》,其中一名时评员黄世聪,声称新加坡总理夫人兼淡马锡首席执行长何晶,年薪近21亿台币(近一亿新元)。 本社跟进报导,淡马锡控股也特地发文反驳相关说法, 不过未点名上述节目。…

Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) scoring to change from 2021

From 2021, students taking their Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) will be…