Transcript of Minister’s Doorstop Interview on the Issuance of Restriction Orders to 14-Year-Old Youth and An’nadya Binte An’nahari on 15 July 2024

Q1: Minister, can you tell us about the latest cases under the Internal Security Act (ISA)

1. Two more Singaporeans have been issued with Restriction Orders (ROs) under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for terrorism-related activities.

2. Both were self-radicalised online. The trigger was the ongoing Israel-HAMAS (I-H) conflict.

3. One is a 14-year-old student . Worryingly, the youngest ISA case to-date. It took only a few months for him to be radicalised.

4. He looked online for information on the conflict, and then he began to support HAMAS and other militant groups.

5. He wanted to fight for the Black Flag Army (BFA) and die as a martyr, and he started preparing himself to join the BFA.

6. He thought that if he could not travel to join the BFA, he was willing to attack targets in Singapore on the BFA’s instructions.

7. He also thought about attacking non-Muslims in Singapore during festivals like Chinese New Year, Christmas, Deepavali because he considered them “un-Islamic”.

8. He also tried to radicalise some of his schoolmates. But was unsuccessful.

9. ISD intervened early, before he could go further.

10. The second case is An’nadya An’nahari . She is 33 years old . She is the second person issued with an RO. She is a former public servant.

11. She was also triggered by the I-H conflict.

12. An’nadya had come to attention before.

13. During the latest conflict, she came across a group called the Axis of Resistance (AOR).

14. She began to support the AOR. She supported their attacks against Israel and Israel’s allies, including civilians. She also advocated for violence.

15. She was the administrator of a social media channel which glorified the AOR’s military operations. She was not successful in getting her family and friends to join the channel.

16. An’nadya was aware that her online activities were unlawful, not acceptable for a public servant. So she hid her extremist views and activities from her colleagues.

17. Her support for the AOR’s violence, and her spreading of propaganda to promote their cause, was a cause for concern, and a security risk.

18. So ROs under ISA have been issued against both – no detention; the ROs mean they cannot engage in some activities.

19. I would say ISD has done excellent work .

Q2: Can you tell us how overseas conflicts have affected the threats that we face in Singapore?

1. You can see that the two cases show that overseas conflicts can affect us internally.

2. You can also see the risk of extremist narratives – they threaten our own national security and social harmony.

3. Singaporeans are deeply concerned about the situation in Gaza, and rightly so. It is a serious situation. Thousands of innocent lives lost. It is a massive humanitarian crisis affecting the Palestinians.

4. 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.

5. And you have seen the Government’s position on the Gaza crisis and Singapore’s recent vote in the United Nations (UN) on Palestinian statehood.

6. But sympathy for any foreign cause cannot mean we can support or allow terrorism.

7. Action was taken against the young boy and An’nadya, not because they supported Palestine. As I said, many of us are deeply affected by the plight of Palestinians, and we show our support in concrete ways - we have organised fundraising, sending of humanitarian aid, and Singapore has taken a clear position internationally, in international organisations.

8. But action was taken against the two of them because of their support for armed violence . And in the case of the young boy, because also that he was prepared to engage in armed violence himself.

Q3: What are we doing about self-radicalisation especially with the individuals getting younger?

1. We will continue to deal with self-radicalisation in Singapore like many other places in the world.

2. Those radicalised are getting younger. This is a global trend. We have seen several cases around the world of armed violence by self-radicalised young people. Recently in Sydney, and London, we have seen young boys being picked up.

3. In Singapore, 40 self-radicalised Singaporeans have been dealt with under the ISA since 2015, and 13 were aged 20 or under. So you can see for yourself.

4. ISD will continue to work with community partners to try and intensify outreach efforts to counter youth radicalisation.

5. Anyone, regardless of age, gender, religion, or profession, can be radicalised.

6. Both these cases involve individuals with different profiles – 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.

7. 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.

Q4: Can we find out why ISD decided to issue them with ROs instead of taking them into custody?

1. Under the ISA, ISD can decide and recommend to the Minister – myself – Detention Orders or a series of ROs which can impose restrictions on you, for example, changing your residence, travelling overseas amongst other things.

2. These powers of detention obviously have to be exercised responsibly.

3. That means you need to look at the cases individually, and calibrate the orders imposed in a way that deals with your assessment of the threat.

4. So you should not be detaining if your assessment is there is no necessity for detention. If something lower – an RO would be enough.

5. To give an analogy – they were on a travellator, that was travelling in one direction.

6. ISD will have to assess how close they were to the destination, how serious and how imminent the threat was, and their assessment was the Restriction Orders imposed were enough to get them off the travellator for the time being.

7. What are the orders that are imposed? Broadly, they cannot travel overseas, they cannot change their residence without letting ISD know, and there are some restrictions on how they access social media.

8. So you can see that we try and let them get on with their lives as far as possible, but at the same time, try and move them away from the path of radicalisation.

9. Hopefully, the families will step in and help them – friends too.

10. But we have had cases in the past where ISD will take limited steps – ROs – and after a while, it doesn’t work and the person goes back to his activities and becomes more of a threat, and further orders have been issued.