SINGAPORE : Singapore's Home Affairs Ministry has said the Internal Security Act (ISA) continues to be relevant and crucial as a measure of last resort for the preservation of national security.
It was responding to queries from MediaCorp.
The Ministry's main points are that Malaysia and Singapore are different, even though the ISA has the same roots for when both countries were British colonies.
It said the respective societies have evolved and even the ISA has evolved into something that is quite different from Malaysia.
For example, a person arrested under the ISA in Singapore may be held in custody for up to 30 days, after which a Detention or Restriction Order must be issued or else the person must be released unconditionally.
In Malaysia, the period of custody is double that - up to 60 days.
In addition, in Singapore, the President can veto the government's decision.
The Ministry said Singapore has used the ISA sparingly.
It said no one has ever been detained only for their political beliefs.
The ISA has been used to deal with threats of subversion, racial and religious extremism, espionage and terrorism. And these threats continue to be salient today.
The Ministry said the ISA was used effectively in 2001 to thwart the imminent suicide bombings planned by Al-Qaeda and the Jemaah Islamiyah.
But like Malaysia, there have been calls among certain quarters in Singapore to abolish the ISA.
They include civil liberty groups and political parties, who argue the law has lost its relevance.
But Dr Rohan Gunaratna, from the International Centre for Political Violence and Research, said it is "foolish" of Malaysia to abolish the ISA.
He said: "Today, there are only two countries in Southeast Asia that have been severely threatened by terrorism but have prevented terrorist attacks. One is Malaysia and the other is Singapore.
"So ISA is an invaluable tool to preventively detain terrorist suspects to investigate and also to confine them. If this important piece of law is taken out of the equation, it will not benefit governments to fight terrorism effectively."
- CNA/ms
It was responding to queries from MediaCorp.
The Ministry's main points are that Malaysia and Singapore are different, even though the ISA has the same roots for when both countries were British colonies.
It said the respective societies have evolved and even the ISA has evolved into something that is quite different from Malaysia.
For example, a person arrested under the ISA in Singapore may be held in custody for up to 30 days, after which a Detention or Restriction Order must be issued or else the person must be released unconditionally.
In Malaysia, the period of custody is double that - up to 60 days.
In addition, in Singapore, the President can veto the government's decision.
The Ministry said Singapore has used the ISA sparingly.
It said no one has ever been detained only for their political beliefs.
The ISA has been used to deal with threats of subversion, racial and religious extremism, espionage and terrorism. And these threats continue to be salient today.
The Ministry said the ISA was used effectively in 2001 to thwart the imminent suicide bombings planned by Al-Qaeda and the Jemaah Islamiyah.
But like Malaysia, there have been calls among certain quarters in Singapore to abolish the ISA.
They include civil liberty groups and political parties, who argue the law has lost its relevance.
But Dr Rohan Gunaratna, from the International Centre for Political Violence and Research, said it is "foolish" of Malaysia to abolish the ISA.
He said: "Today, there are only two countries in Southeast Asia that have been severely threatened by terrorism but have prevented terrorist attacks. One is Malaysia and the other is Singapore.
"So ISA is an invaluable tool to preventively detain terrorist suspects to investigate and also to confine them. If this important piece of law is taken out of the equation, it will not benefit governments to fight terrorism effectively."
- CNA/ms
