关于内部安全局发表《内部安全法令》案件的声明

PRESS RELEASE ON ISA CASES
Teo Soh Lung

On 24 Jan, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a press release informing of the release of two teenagers. http://tinyurl.com/4avrj3n8

One of the boys is now about 19 years old. He was arrested and detained under the ISA in December 2020 when he was just 16. He has therefore spent about three years in prison without trial. The ISD claims that his education has not been disrupted and that he was guided by both teachers and volunteers during his detention and is fit enough to return to his family.

The other boy is 16 years old. The press release states that he has been issued with a Restriction Order i.e. he is subjected to some conditions like residence, access to internet and travels. How did he end up being served with a restriction order? The statement is silent though it did say that the order was imposed under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

Most of us take the Ministry of Home Affairs' press releases as Gospel truth. We forget that the person released played no part in the drafting of the statement and does not have the right to respond. He may not even know about these press releases. To respond may also result in re-arrest as had happened in the past.

The ISA allows the police a total of 30 days to investigate a case. When a person is arrested under the ISA, he is subject to investigation for 24 hours which as a matter of course, is usually extended to 48 hours. And when 48 hours is not sufficient to complete an investigation or if the police is of the opinion that the person needs to be taught a lesson, an extension of 28 days is permitted. During this extended period, the police can issue a detention order for a maximum of two years renewable or a restriction order.

MHA does not tell us if the boy was issued the restriction order within 24 hours or 48 hours or 30 days. I would hazard a guess that the boy was detained for 30 days and the restriction order served on him on the 30th day. This is a common practice.

I find it difficult to believe MHA’s statement which claims that the boy who is of Chinese ethnicity was self-radicalised by far-right white extremist propaganda. How did he identify himself as a WHITE! I think it is likely that the boy was surfing the net and reading some far right materials. His contributions to chat groups may have attracted the attention of ISD officers who may also be prowling the same sites.

I wonder why there is a need to use the ISA on the boy. The ISD could have spoken to his parents and referred him to counsellors without using the ISA.

Finally, the rather consoling statement that the boy did not plan to conduct any attack in Singapore puzzles me. This is not the first time that such a statement is made. If the ISD believes that he did not intend to cause harm to anyone in Singapore and did not discuss anything with his family or friends, what crime did he commit? Fantasising to do something in ten years time (if true) may result in nothing. “Nipped in the bud” I suppose would be the ISD’s answer. But as I told ISD officers a long time ago, many buds do not bloom. Their pre-emptive strikes cause hardship, anxiety, loss of freedom and reputation for the persons detained and their families. It is time the MHA change its policy, the sooner the better.