Measures to Minimise Radicalisation in Our Community

Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the detention of the first female Singaporean for radicalism (a) how can the Home Team enhance its efforts to work with communities in Singapore to reduce the likelihood of Singaporeans becoming radicalised; and (b) whether the Government-community partnership can be further strengthened to increase our readiness to stay united should an attack happen on our shores.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he can give an assessment of the terrorism threat posed by radicalised foreigners in Singapore and what measures are being taken to counter the threat.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent terrorist attacks in Europe and Asia over the last few months, (a) whether the current SGSecure initiatives are sufficient; and (b) whether there are new initiatives to counter copycats of lone-wolf attacks.

Thank you, Madam. I also note that Mr Zaqy Mohamad had asked a related Parliamentary Question (PQ) scheduled for this range of Sittings.

Madam, the recent spate of terrorist attacks in the UK is yet another grim reminder of the serious threats of radicalisation and extremism. First, the threat to innocent lives. Let us be quite clear. Whether it is an attack by a radicalised Muslim individual, or an attack by an extremist Islamophobe − which happened in London a few weeks ago − all these are terror attacks which have no place in our society or any society. They must be firmly condemned.

As seen in the UK, terror attacks can take place anywhere, anytime. How do we completely guard against someone who decides to drive a car into a crowded public area? Or someone who goes on a stabbing rampage with a kitchen knife? These are very difficult security challenges, which we and our counterparts around the world take very seriously. Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked about this.

MHA, together with several other agencies, is reviewing existing security measures in public spaces, in particular, against hostile vehicle attacks. Possible new measures include putting up bollards or security barriers.

In evaluating the various options, we will take into account several factors, including:

(a) function, in short, how effective will the measures be in addressing the threat;

(b) form, how the measures will fit into the surroundings and be part of the surroundings; and

(c) impact on users, will the measures significantly restrict day-to-day usage of the space.

We could try and fortify the entire city. But this is not a sensible or practical approach. We will have to strike a balance between enhancing security which is very important, on the one hand, and the possibility of disrupting day-to-day activities through the imposition of curbs and restrictions, which will inconvenience users, on the other hand. These security measures will also come at a significant cost to taxpayers. The Government will need to make a practical assessment about the type and extent of measures we put in place to enhance security for Singaporeans.

These measures will complement the laws and stakeholder engagement processes that we already have or will be implementing in the coming months. We amended the Public Order Act in April this year. Organisers of events that attract large crowds, or are of higher risk, are required to put necessary security measures in place. We will introduce a new Infrastructure Protection Act later this year − to better protect critical infrastructure and large-scale developments.

We will continue to work with public and private sector stakeholders to enhance the security of buildings and public spaces. An updated version of the Guidelines for Enhancing Building Security in Singapore will be released later this year. Specific to schools, as Miss Cheng Li Hui had asked, MHA works closely with MOE. We keep MOE informed of the overall security threat climate and risks. Based on this, MOE works with us to review and calibrate the security measures for schools.

It is important to put in place laws and other security measures to prevent an attack. But this is not sufficient. I now want to focus on the second threat of radicalisation and extremism which is the threat to our social fabric. This is less apparent than any immediate loss of life, but can be greatly damaging to our nation as a whole. The Minister for Home Affairs has spoken at length on various occasions about this.

Today, I will speak on two specific groups which Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Christopher de Souza asked about: (a) students and school staff; and (b) foreigners.

Most of the Singaporeans who have been radicalised were younger than 30. Some were in their teens. They were mainly self-radicalised online. This is not surprising. Our youths consume a lot of information from the Internet and social media. Radical preachers and terrorist groups know this. They exploit these media to spread their radical ideologies and terrorist propaganda.

Our youth spend a significant proportion of their time in schools and educational institutions. Schools are, therefore, key platforms for us to counter these dangerous influences. We approach this from multiple aspects.

First, the school curriculum. Through Social Studies and Character & Citizenship Education lessons, MOE inculcates in our students values of living harmoniously in Singapore's multi-racial and multi-religious society. MHA has also worked with MOE to incorporate counter-terrorism messages into the Secondary school curriculum.

Second, the school environment. Our schools provide a supportive environment for our students to build strong, positive relationships with their peers and teachers from different races and religions. These social bonds are the strongest counter against any exclusivist or extremist mindset.

Teachers and counsellors also look out for students who display anti-social behaviour. We do our best to intervene and provide guidance early to prevent such behaviour from spiralling into more dangerous forms of extremism.

MHA conducts workshops for teachers and counsellors to sensitise them to the heightened threat environment, as well as increase their understanding of terrorist ideologies and tell-tale signs of radicalisation. They play an important role in identifying students or co-workers who may be radicalised.

Even as we put in all these measures, the responsibility of inoculating our young from radical, extremist influences cannot be left to schools alone. Family members, friends, colleagues, religious leaders and community leaders play an important role. I will come back to this later in my reply.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked for an update on the threat by radicalised foreigners in Singapore.

In 2015 and 2016, some 40 Bangladeshi nationals in Singapore were found to have been radicalised. They supported the use of violence to pursue their extremist ideology. We repatriated all of them to Bangladesh, except for six who are currently serving prison sentences in Singapore for terrorism financing offences.

Since 2015, we have also uncovered nine cases of radicalised foreign domestic workers (FDWs). We updated the House on seven cases in January this year. Since then, another two more have been detected. Similar to the earlier cases, both of them were ISIS supporters, radicalised through social media. One of them intended to travel to Syria with her foreign boyfriend to join ISIS. None of the nine had plans to carry out acts of violence in Singapore. But we cannot condone support for any radical ideologies in Singapore − whether by locals or foreigners. All nine of them have been repatriated to their home countries.

MHA has worked closely with MOM to address the threat of radicalised foreigner workers. After the arrest of the radicalised Bangladeshi nationals last year, we prepared an advisory for foreign workers. We advised them to be alert, watch out for signs of radicalisation among their co-workers and to report any possible radicalisation to the authorities.

We will do more, to sensitise our foreign workers to Singapore's multi-religious social values. This will take place throughout their time working in Singapore.

Upon arrival in Singapore, all foreign workers are required to visit the MOM Services Centre. The Education Gallery in the Centre will display messages that reinforce the dangers of radical ideologies, the need to be vigilant and to report any suspicious activities or radicalised workers.

FDWs will be required to go through a Settling-In Programme. They will be sensitised to the threat of radicalisation and made aware that any form of radicalisation will not be condoned in Singapore.

In their dormitories, foreign workers will be regularly engaged by agencies, such as MOM, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) and the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG). They will be advised to call the RRG hotline should they require any advice − for themselves or with regard to someone they know.

MUIS is also looking to better manage the religious needs of Muslim foreign workers in Singapore. Foreigners are encouraged to seek religious advice only from ARS-accredited asatizah. They can attend religious classes at our mosques and will continue to be welcomed and included in activities in the mosques and the broader community. This will strengthen their understanding and appreciation of Singapore's multi-religious social values and norms.

Mdm Speaker, on the role of the community, we all know that SGSecure is our national movement to mobilise the community in our fight against terror. Mr Ang Wei Neng asked if the current initiatives are sufficient. Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Christopher de Souza asked if more can be done.

Through SGSecure, public vigilance has increased. The Police have received many reports from members of the public on suspicious circumstances, from 999 calls and also via the SGSecure app. The public is paying closer attention to our surroundings and does not hesitate to make reports to the authorities.

The public's response to incidents, such as the closures of Hougang and Woodleigh MRT stations in April 2017, was also encouraging. The large majority of Singaporeans understood the potential security threats and accepted the inconvenience caused as a result. MHA will continue to work towards strengthening community vigilance.

However, SGSecure is not just about preventing a terrorist attack. More than that, it is about how we stand united as one Singapore, to help one another, after an attack. At the root of this is how we strengthen and safeguard our social fabric.

MHA will continue to work with agencies like MCCY and the People's Association to implement community programmes. For example, MCCY is establishing the SGSecure Community Network to strengthen partnerships with religious and community organisations, to build greater mutual trust and understanding.

The community plays a critical role in strengthening and safeguarding our social fabric.

First, the role of family members in safeguarding against radicalisation. We have made this point previously and repeatedly, but it is critical.

We talked about the risk of online radicalisation among our youths earlier in the reply. Family members and friends are in the best position to notice signs of radicalisation. If an individual is spending excessive amounts of time on the Internet looking at suspicious, potentially radical material; or talks in praise of terrorist groups or about going overseas to take part in armed violence − family members and friends should alert the authorities immediately.

This is a very difficult decision for any father, mother, brother or sister to make. However, this must be infinitely better than losing a son or daughter, brother or sister forever, to armed violence overseas or a suicide attack.

Second, the role of religious leaders and community leaders in encouraging community integration. Religious and community leaders must step forward to play an active role, through their speech and their deeds.

We were heartened to see that the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) had written a letter to MUIS, in support of our Muslim community − after the detention of Izzah, the radicalised female infant-care assistant, was announced. The letter was made public. NCCS recognised the contributions of the Muslim community to Singapore's progress and the strength of our multi-religious community. It made clear its position that the detention must not be used to stoke the flames of Islamophobia in Singapore.

Every religious and community leader has a role to play, within their own communities. We strongly encourage religious leaders to emphasise multi-racial and multi-religious values in their teachings and the importance of the various communities in Singapore interacting, understanding and integrating with one another. Religious leaders can also take the initiative to organise activities with other religious groups. It can be as simple as a visit to a nearby place of worship of another religion to understand them, or sharing a meal with groups from other faiths.

Third, the role of the individual in building stronger friendships with those of a different race or religion. We made this point when we talked about schools earlier. But it must go beyond the schools. We must make an active effort to make friends with our neighbours and co-workers, exchange greetings and celebrate our respective festivals together. We must safeguard and expand the common space where people from different races and religions can interact. These are the foundations of our social fabric which have brought us to where we are today and we must protect them at all cost.

Thank you, Madam. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. The Minister had said recently that there were two more individuals picked up for radicalisation. Can the Minister kindly share the profiles, if at all possible, of these two that were recently picked up?

My second question is, if it is a Singaporean who is being potentially radicalised, there is a family in Singapore and there is a family support network who could encourage him and even report him to get help. My question is: is that not a little bit more difficult where it is a foreigner where he does not have that sort of accountability, mechanism, in the form of a family? What is MHA's approach to ensure that his peer support mechanism does report him? What does MHA do to encourage those support mechanisms to report foreigners to the authorities?

Madam, of the two latest radicalised foreign domestic workers, one of them is 25 years old. She is the youngest among the nine radicalised foreign domestic workers that we have detected so far. She wanted to travel, as I said, to Syria with a foreign boyfriend to join ISIS. She had worked in Singapore for two years. The other foreign domestic worker is 28 years old, single and had worked in Singapore for close to five years. Both of them came from different parts of Indonesia. They were detected a few months ago and both were repatriated after investigations were complete. Both are not known to have influenced their friends or contacts in Singapore.

The Member has also asked a question about how support networks can be created for foreign workers who come to Singapore. During Ramadan, I visited a foreign dormitory, broke fast together with the management of the dormitory and the bosses of companies whose workers were housed in the dormitory. I had some time to talk to some of the workers. Some have been here for many, many years; some had just arrived. Those who had just arrived, I asked them, they said they had no friends yet but were actively trying to look out for people from their community back home. Some would find, perhaps, relatives, both close or distant, friends from the same city or village, but some are just meeting people for the first time from the place where they come from.

So, our foreign workers coming here to Singapore will try to build their networks. When you speak to some of the older foreign workers, those who have been here for a longer time, they say, "I look out for my younger brother. If he is a new person, I will share with him." They are very conversant in English and are very familiar with our surroundings.

I have spoken earlier in my response about the different things that agencies are doing to familiarise foreign workers before they even leave their home countries; when they arrive in Singapore, at different touchpoints in time, engaging RRG, MUIS and MOM to reach out to the foreign workers, talking to bosses of companies. But when we sensitise the broader foreign worker community in Singapore to Singapore's multi-racial and multi-religious fabric, and about the importance of integration, many of them begin to be familiar with what to look out for. It is our hope that these will provide those informal social networks that the Member talked about. They are like family to each other in their own way.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. We note that the recent attacks in London involved terrorists driving a truck and ramming into pedestrians along a pedestrian crossing. Similar attacks could also happen in Orchard Road, which can be quite scary. While some say that it is healthy to see a crowd crossing a pedestrian crossing, it is also posing a threat.

So, would MHA consider taking the lead in a whole-of-Government approach to encourage building owners to build linkages on the second level, overhead, or underground, to reduce such threats, rather than having the existing building regulations to compel the building owners to only build linkages during major renovations?

The second question is: will MHA consider increasing the number and scale of exercises in the heartlands involving the residents, so that they can be better prepared for the aftermath of an attack, if any?

Madam, the Member's first question is about whether we should encourage building owners or require building owners to build linkages between buildings at the second or higher levels, to reduce the risk of pedestrians crossing at grade, therefore exposing the public to the risk of vehicular attacks. As I have said earlier, MHA is working with built environment agencies and relevant associations to look at what sensibly needs to be done to strengthen safety and security in Singapore.

Members would know that our security layers are multi-pronged, both outside Singapore and our borders and within Singapore − the law enforcement and security forces' responses and capabilities, but also individuals' responsibility – being alert, being aware what to do. And being stakeholders in the community, building owners are also playing a part.

When Members talk about risks at road crossings, I think if we put our mind to it, we can think of many, many other areas where we are soft targets. For example, if we cross an underground tunnel or overhead link, that, again, funnels crowds and gives rise to threats, maybe not vehicles, maybe knife threats. So, the question is, do we want to harden the whole country? Sometimes, we get suggestions that we should harden every area and screen at every possible place. We have to strike the right balance because, pushed to the extreme, without an attack even occurring, terrorists would have won, if life in Singapore and any other city freezes up because of all these measures. This will, of course, come with lots of concerns between communities about each other. So, it is not just the infrastructure causing inconvenience and frustration, but also the whole sense of fear, a climate of fear, with regard to terrorism.

I have addressed the Member's concern. We will look at all sensible measures that we need to put in place. But, again, we have to strike a balance. Let me give Members an example. Some people suggested we should do screening before crowds enter MRT stations or before they even enter an airport or a train station. And then, someone pointed out, if you do that, you need to harden the queue outside the security screening point. And then, how about outside that? I think we have to strike a balance and ensure that all layers, all stakeholders, take part.

The Member's second question is about exercises in the community. The Member may be aware that we have revamped the Emergency Preparedness (EP) Day. EP Day now, as revamped, focuses a lot on counter-terrorism, making sure our residents living in Singapore and the heartlands are aware of what the nature of the risk is, helping to guide them on how to look out for suspicious behaviour and radicalised individuals and what to do, encouraging them to subscribe to the SGSecure app.

More than half a million phones have now got the SGSecure app and we are pushing it further. So, it is 550,000 and going up.

These revamped EP Days are one or two or three a month. So, we are actively pushing them out. But we are happy to work with stakeholders and with community partners who wish to join us in this joint fight against terrorism.

Minister, how is the Government responding to the on-going crisis in Marawi in the Philippines, something which has taken many in Southeast Asia by surprise? Has the Ministry's perception of the threat to Singapore from terrorism changed as a result of it?

In various responses and speeches made by my colleagues and I, we have talked about the threat of returning fighters from Syria and Iraq as they begin to lose ground there. So, that is one threat. But we also talked about the concern with regard to the south of the Philippines, with the ISIS' intention to set up a caliphate province. That being very close to Singapore and our region, certainly raises security concerns. So, MHA, together with other agencies, is actively looking at developments there and will make sure that the necessary security measures are in place.

Earlier, the Minister shared some of the profiles of those who have been radicalised. Has MHA studied some of these profiles and seen a trend − who are these in the groups that are more vulnerable to radicalisation − so that that could, at least, enable us to target some of these segments?

My question is: what are some of these segments that are more vulnerable and has MHA profiled them?

The second question is: I understand there are also sites that they probably go to because a lot of the threats the Minister mentioned were online. So, does MHA also actively track these sites and what are we doing to block them or reduce access to these sites?

The third question relates to my Parliamentary Question No 39 which the Minister alluded to earlier − whether in constituencies or on the ground where the constituencies require or find that these are potential threats and we need to set up bollards and so forth, will items like these be put into schemes like the CIPC, for example, to be funded so that it would give constituencies or heartlands the autonomy to also set up some of these bollards where required?

Let me take the Member's questions in turn. On the first question, on the profile, I have said earlier that those whom we have identified as radicalised tend to be younger people below the age of 30 who look to the Internet for a lot of news and information. Beyond that, operationally, I would not want to comment further on the questions the Member has raised, but MHA is actively keeping a look-out for radicalised individuals in Singapore, whether local or foreign.

In terms of sites, the Member asked whether we track or block sites. Again, it is an operational detail. But I would like to say that in terms of blocking of sites, we do so when it is practical. But it would not be as effective or practical as sensitising and inoculating people from the false information and ideologies that are being conveyed through social media, and there are active steps being taken by the Government, community groups and religious organisations to reach out to people, including young people, to better inoculate the community against such influences.

As for bollards and other security measures that could reduce certain kinds of risk patterns, these are things that I have said earlier that MHA is actively working with the built environment agencies to look at.

Madam, could I ask the Minister would the Police be working closer with car rental companies, specifically for commercial goods vehicles, for security screening of people renting these vehicles?

Yes, the answer is yes, we are working closely with the relevant associations. We are looking at various measures which we are not ready to announce at this point in time. But, at its base, we encourage heavy vehicle owners and car rental companies to be very mindful of the people that they rent their vehicles out to. And car rental companies already are required to keep a register which will, again, allow them to filter threats.