Singapore is supposed to be neither a military state or a police state. Yet based on the increasing number of police and military profile raising exercises ranging from posters to videos to public displays of might, it is beginning to look a little bit like the military or police state that it is not supposed to be.

It has been noticed that there has been a heightened focus on the threat of terrorism in the past year even though there is no evidence to suggest that the threat is any higher than before. Further, the police force appear to have been on a mission to showcase its machismo. Now, there is a joint police and military exercise based on the alleged threat of terrorism. Is this too much of an overkill? Is there a genuine threat or is it a bit of a red herring?

Taken in conjunction with rumours of a 2019 general election, the high profile Workers’ Party (WP) lawsuit which could potentially bankrupt the top brass of the nation’s leading political party making them unable to contest, the way potential critics are swiftly discredited and the ramping up of regulations against “fake news”, one could arguably see a pattern of disrupting potential challengers to the incumbent Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) government. In isolation, each issue can be disregarded but altogether and in context, there could perhaps be a more disturbing trend of behaviour on the part of the PAP to consolidate power.

On the surface, it could look like a very vigilant government intent on safeguarding the interests of the public against any potential terrorist attack. That said, the very public nature of the exercises and the way photos are published to show uniformed men forcefully tackling individuals could potentially be a message to the public of the authority and power the present government has at its disposal.

If there really was a genuine terrorist threat, wouldn’t the authorities be more secretive about its methods to take them down? The last thing we want is for would be terrorists to see what preparations we have made so that they can try and better our strategies to mount an effective attack! Isn’t discretion key?

If the government is trying to reassure us of its ability to protect us, it is having the opposite effect on me. It is either playing too much into the hands of would-be terrorists by giving away all our secrets or it is subtly giving us the impression (whether rightly or wrongly) that our government has at its disposal a huge arsenal to use against anyone considered an enemy by the PAP run government.

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

Don’t take pity on me

Robin Low writes that Singaporeans are struggling to afford retirement due to a high cost of living, inadequate retirement savings, longer life expectancy, difficulty finding work, and family responsibilities. Many turn to real estate investments to beat inflation, but this contributes to a housing bubble that exacerbates the income divide. The policies that maximize the price of public housing, with an increasing land value added, ultimately result in the housing yielding $0 at the end of the lease, making it more like a liability than an asset.

13 Scoot passengers to China tested COVID-19 positive, all from S’porean construction sector

On 19 August, an article was circulating on Chinese social media app,…

刑事法(临时条款)修正法案明年1月1日起生效

我国内政部于本周二宣布,在今年二月通过的刑事法(临时条款)修正法案,将在2019年1月1日,正式生效。 内政部指出,配合拘留令(DO)和警察监视令(Police Supervision Orders),上述法案能透过拘留涉嫌犯罪活动份子,保障公共秩序和安全。 “有关法案权限只有在法院无法起诉的情况下使用,例如证人因害怕报复而不愿供证。法案过去也有效地对付那些秘密组织、有组织犯罪行为如贩毒和高利贷。” 事实上,刑事临时条款自1955年即沿用至今,国会需每五年检讨,都获得延长。第14次的延长期限,将在明年10月21日起生效。 在今年二月6日,国会经过四个小时辩论后,以77票赞成、10票反对、两票弃权,三读通过刑事法(临时条款)修正法案,使这项法令的有效期再延长五年。 其中八名工人党议员投下反对票。 上述修正增附第四附表,明确列出可援引法令行使拘留权的犯罪活动清单。内政部声称,此举能限制部长权限,也增强问责制度。 法案的其他修正包括,明确界定内政部长可针对哪些犯罪活动,下令拘留或指示警方监视一个人。 部长拥最后决定权 法案也阐明,一个人是否涉及犯罪活动,以及是否有必要为了公共安全、社会治安和秩序而将之拘留,部长拥有最后决定权。…

高级律师及爱国者G拉曼博士安祥过世 享年82岁

文:前学运领袖、维权律师陈华彪 翻译:万章 2020年12月8日高级律师及爱国者G拉曼博士安祥过世,享年82岁。 新加坡法律界称呼他为可靠先生。 他以诚实,公平磊落,绅士风范和个人品德赢得了2014年新加坡律师协会CC Tan奖。 资深大律师Thio Shen Yi宣读表扬书时,形容拉曼博士是一位资深的律师,他以正直和坦率著称,他“无论对方的身份如何,都毫无疑虑的表达自己的观点。” 自1974年起,我很荣幸与拉曼律师成为朋友。拉曼一直是我多年的好友和同志。 尽管已经在政治上付出了沉重的代价,勇敢的他仍然对我这么说:“华彪,你须要我帮上什么忙,尽管让我知道。” 1974年,大卫·马绍尔(David…