Category: ISA

  • People detained without trial in Singapore from 1950 – 2025
    (List of Detainees)

    The People’s Action Party (PAP) came into power in 1959 and is still in power today. The Internal Security Act (ISA) which allows the government to arrest and imprison people without trial is frequently used against members of the opposition parties as well as nipping dissent in the bud. The predecessors to this law are the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 and the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955.  Thousands have been imprisoned without trial but no one except the Internal Security Department knows the exact number of prisoners. 

    In 2014, a list of 1190 names of detainees was compiled and published by Loh Miao Gong (Loh Miao Ping) in the book The Operation Coldstore in Singapore, Commemorating 50 Years edited by Poh Soo Kai, Tan Kok Fang and Hong Lysa. We have updated this list which now contains 1416 names. Please see list of detainees in PDF format

    clicking on photo will bring you to the list too

    From 2001, the ISA was mainly used against Muslims. This was just prior to and soon after the destruction of the Twin Towers, New York. Suspicion fell on Al-Qaeda as the attackers. 2,996 (including the 19 hijackers of the planes) lost their lives. Three of them are likely to be still in prison today.

    From 2015, the ISA was used against migrant workers from Bangladesh. Many were detained for about 30 days (the period allowed under the law for investigation) and deported to their homeland. From 2016, several of those detained were charged and convicted under the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (TSOFA), 2002  for remitting small sums of money to organisations, alleged to be terrorist groups, in their home country. They were repatriated after prison sentences were completed.

    From 2019, female Indonesian domestic workers were arrested under the ISA for remitting small sums of money to alleged terrorist organisations in Indonesia. Several were subsequently charged under the TSOFA and deported after serving prison  sentences. 

    From 2015, many detainees were gazetted as terrorists under Schedule A of TSOFA prior to their release.

    In 1995, Singapore acceded to the Treaty on the Rights of the Child. With effect from 1 July 2020, a “child” is defined as a person below the age of 18. Despite acceptance of the Treaty, young people below the age of 18 are not spared under the ISA. In December 2020, an unnamed 16 year-old youth was detained under the ISA. In November and December 2022, two youths, aged 15 and 16 years old were arrested and imprisoned under the ISA. In October 2023 an unnamed youth of 16 was arrested and released a month later under restriction orders.

    Notes (updated on 8th Apr 2024)

    1. The number of detainees in the list is not conclusive. Only the ISD can provide the actual number.
    2. The Singapore government do not consider those who were detained for not more than 30 days as detainees. People who were detained were occasionally released within 30 days and re-detained. There have been instances where detainees were detained in this manner for 60 or 90 days. No detention orders were issued.
    3. In 2011 Deputy Prime Minister revealed in parliament that from 1959 to 1990, a total of 2,460 arrests were made under the ISA and of these arrests, 1,045 were detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and the ISA. The present list of 1,414 may not represent the true number of victims of the ISA. The number is likely to be more.
    4. In April 2024 Minister K Shanmugam revealed in parliament that 7 alleged self-radicalised individuals are still in prison today.
    5. Some of the names in the list do not set out the release dates. They may be released but we do not have information.

    We hope that the government will issue a full list of detainees one day.

  • Arresting Teenagers Under The ISA

    Teo Soh Lung

    Minister K Shanmugam was met by reporters at the doorstep of Masjid Maarof a few days ago when he disclosed that a 15 year old girl was served with a Restriction Order in February 2025 for allegedly supporting and pledging allegiance to ISIS through a chatbot and a 17 year old boy was served with a Detention Order in March 2025 for “far right extremist” thoughts. The boy was allegedly a contact of Nick Lee Xing Qiu who has been in detention since November 2024.

    The minister did not reveal when these two young people were arrested. Since the ISA allows a person to be arrested and detained for 30 days without having to be produced in court or served with a detention order, it is likely that the girl was arrested and detained in January 2025 for about 30 days and the boy in February 2025.

    What do I make of the minister’s disclosure of the latest young victims of the ISA? Several online commentators speculated that the intention of the minister was to distract the attention of Singaporeans from the embarrassing problem created by former NMP Calvin Cheng who on his Facebook, promised to buy pro Palestinian activists business class air tickets to Gaza and shoes provided they do not return to Singapore. There was also the mysterious act of Minister Vivian Balakrishnan who apparently “liked” Cheng’s post but later retracted, claiming that he was not responsible for the “like”.

    I leave aside all these speculations. For now, I want to say that Minister Shanmugam’s revelation of the two young victims of the ISA at the doorstep of a mosque is shocking and is a veiled threat to all of us. Arresting and detaining a person under the ISA is a very serious matter. Why did he make the announcement so informally and at the doorstep of a mosque? Why didn’t he issue a press statement as was his ministry’s practice? Will this be his new practice for announcing arrests and detentions under the ISA?

    Reading the transcript of his interview, I draw the conclusion that the minister is proud of the fact that he possesses the power to arrest and detain any person without having to show evidence of the alleged threat such a person pose to Singapore or Singaporeans. He said:

    “… Thanks to the framework of laws we have in the Internal Security Act and the way we take a zero tolerance approach. For us, WE DON’T WAIT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY ARE ABOUT TO DO SOMETHING – YOU ARE THINKING OF, DOING SOMETHING YOU ARE PLANNING, WE THINK THAT YOU HAVE REACHED THE STAGE OF, YOU KNOW, GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, WE MOVE IN. (Emphasis in uppercase mine). We have a variety of orders, restriction orders – so you are not detained, detention orders where it is more serious and you need to be taken in.

    … ISD tries its best to keep track of people with these sorts of thoughts. But the large, very significant way, Singapore is largely a peaceful place between races, between religions. Harmony, we emphasise that. We are integrated in the way we live, in the way we go to schools, in the way we work. We have to make sure that we keep it going. The beautiful thing about Singapore is that you can go about your lives peacefully. That is the essence of your question. So, we have to try and preserve that way of life.”

    Can the minister and the ISD read the minds of each and everyone of us? Are they super psychiatrists and psychologists who can never be wrong in their assessment? He claims: “The beautiful thing about Singapore is that you can go about your lives peacefully.”

    My question is who is the “you” in this statement? The “you” does not refer to the young victims or their families. They are in big trouble. Their families are in turmoil. While they are unable to proclaim their innocence because they have been restricted or detained indefinitely, the minister and his people can enjoy their lives as if nothing has happened. It is clear to me that the “you” does not refer to you or me. It refers to them, the PAP. We are all subjected to their expertise in mind-reading.

    Must all Singaporeans live in fear of being arrested and detained under the ISA for thoughts of overthrowing the PAP even if such an event happen through the ballot box? If this is what the minister wants to tell us, it is better that we give our votes to the opposition so that he can be humbled and stop misusing his massive power.

  • T-Shirts And Tattoo

    by Teo Soh Lung

    On 10 February 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a press release informing the public that three people were arrested in October, November and December last year and subsequently deported, released on restrictions or detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA). For several months, besides their families, the public was not aware of these arrests. If indeed the government takes a “Zero-tolerance stance on support for terrorism and importance of early reporting”, why did it take several months to announce their arrests? The urgency of such “threats” is lost when reporting is delayed and when those arrested were released or deported.

    The three people arrested were Saharuddin bin Saari (34 years old), Nick Lee Xing Qiu 18 and Hamizah binte Hamzah (56 years old).

    Saharuddin being a Malaysian, was reported to have been handed over to the Malaysian police after one month of detention.

    While Lee was issued with a detention order, Hamizah was released on a restriction order.

    NICK LEE XING QIU

    Does Lee deserve to be indefinitely detained?

    The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said that Lee is the third young person who was attracted by far right ideology. The other two who were 16 year olds, were released after one month of detention.

    What were the evidence against Lee that warrants a detention order? Was it because he is 18 or because he was found to have a tattoo and three t-shirts with alleged symbols of the far right?

    MHA’s statement contradicts itself when it claims that Lee viewed himself as a East Asian supremacist rather than a white supremacist. While alleging that he idolised Brenton Tarrant who singlehandedly killed and injured many Muslims in Christchurch, the ministry did not produce any evidence that Lee would carry out such atrocities in Singapore. Indeed, as in past cases, it admitted that:

    “Lee’s family members, teachers and schoolmates were unaware of his radicalisation, and there is no indication that he tried to influence them with his violent extremist views. At the point of his arrest, Lee’s attack ideations were aspirational and he had no timeline to carry them out. Investigations into Lee’s online contacts have not surfaced any imminent threat to Singapore.”

    I am not convinced that a tattoo which did not resemble fully a sonnenrad as the black centre is absent and three t-shirts, one of which has a TOTENKOPF constitute sufficient evidence to warrant the severe punishment of ARREST and INDEFINITE DETENTION under the ISA. How many of us had t shirts of Totenkopf and portraits of revolutionary leaders like Che Guevara and Nelson Mandela when we were young? During my undergrad days, Che Guevara was very popular.

    Has our education system collapsed to such a degree that schools are no longer capable to guiding a young person to the “right path”? Is the MHA making use of Lee to warn young people that surfing the net and watching so called far right videos is forbidden and may lead to arrest and indefinite detention under the ISA? Lee’s case is not even one of having to “nip in the bud” that the PAP likes to practise because he is a so called “lone wolf”.

    HAMIZAH BINTE HAMZAH

    The ministry alleged that Hamizah was “radicalised” because of HAMAS’s 7 October 2023 attacks against Israel. What is the meaning of being radicalised?

    It is alleged that she was active online and followed development of the Israel-Hamas conflict closely, opening many online accounts to replace posts and accounts that were removed.

    I think many of us who have a conscience have followed the terrible genocide online. We have given up mainstream media including BBC and CNN. Many of us followed posts from Gaza and Al Jazeera closely. Sharing of violent posts inevitably resulted in algorithms removing some of our posts. I have had such experience and occasionally, not being satisfied that a repost or remark was evil, I had appealed with positive results. I did not open several accounts like Hamizah but the fact remains that I have seen, commented and sympathised with Palestinians. And my sympathies with them have been open, including writing to the Israeli Embassy.

    Does pro Hamas posts and anti IDF comments equate to my being incline to taking up arms and joining them? I think most of us know that the days of James Puthucheary joining the Indian Nationalists and Chinese helping to construct the Yunnan road are over!

    Like Lee and so many others, the ministry itself concluded that “Hamizah had no attack plans nor intentions to engage in armed violence locally or overseas. … Hamizah’s family members were unaware of her radicalisation. She intentionally tried to keep her extremist views from them, for fear of censure.”

    As a former victim of the ISA, I am aware that press releases are one sided statements. The detainees do not know what is said about them. When they are released, the relief that they are no longer in indefinite detention is so great that they don’t even read such press releases. And if they read them, they know that any response may result in their re-detention as had happened to me and my friends in 1988.

    It is high time the Singapore government truly respect the rule of law. This colonial law made much worse by the PAP should be repealed immediately. Singaporeans deserve to be treated fairly. Should they be accused of wrong doings, free and open trial should be available to them and not clandestine hearings before the advisory board. Executive detention is not the way a civilised and prosperous country like Singapore should continue to practise after 60 years of independence.

    Photos from MHA’s press release.