Terrorism threat in Singapore remains high, driven by events like Israeli-Palestinian conflict: ISD
In its terrorism report on July 29, the Internal Security Department said there is currently no specific intelligence of an imminent terrorist attack against Singapore.
SINGAPORE – A volatile global landscape arising from developments like the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to drive the high terrorism threat in Singapore, said the Internal Security Department (ISD).
It released its annual report on terrorism on July 29, saying terrorist organisations have exploited situations like the one in Gaza to spread their propaganda, using them to reinforce their violent narratives.
ISD said ISIS and Al-Qaeda have incited attacks against Israeli and Jewish interests, and those of countries seen as supporting Israel.
This has corresponded with an increase in anti-Semitic incidents worldwide and in Islamophobia overseas, it added.
ISD said there is currently no specific intelligence of an imminent terrorist attack against Singapore.
But the country continues to be viewed as an attractive target by terrorists because of its friendly relations with Western nations and Israel, and its status as a secular and multicultural state.
Since its
last report in July 2024 , ISD has dealt with eight self-radicalised Singaporeans: six males and two females aged 15 to 56.
Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
Singapore Online platforms have halved time it takes for Singaporeans to be self-radicalised: ISD
Asia Extreme weather turns Beijing into rain trap; 30 killed, over 80,000 evacuated
Asia Meeting between Cambodian-Thai militaries postponed, as acting Thai PM says border calm
Singapore NDP 2025: Enhanced security measures to be put in place around the Padang
Business SIA shares tumble after 59% first-quarter profit slide
Singapore Motorcyclist hurt after car crashes into bollard next to Clementi coffee shop
Sport World Cup winner Fabio Cannavaro among list of top names for Singapore football coach
Four of them had been influenced by the re-escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in October 2023, when Hamas attacked Israel, killing some 1,200 people.
Of the other four cases, two were radicalised by pro-ISIS extremist ideologies and two by violent far-right extremism.
ISD warned that ISIS is resilient and remains one of the world's largest Islamist terrorist organisations. It has cash reserves of around $12.9 million and has between 1,500 and 3,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria.
The department added that
far-right extremism ideologies has gained ground in Singapore , especially among the youth.
Since 2020, there have been four youths who have been dealt with under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for subscribing to such ideologies.
Two of them, aged 18 and 17, had been self-radicalised separately after becoming inspired by the shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March 2019. The shooter,
Brenton Tarrant, murdered 51 Muslims and livestreamed the killings.
Both teens idolised Tarrant and identified as East Asian supremacists, believing in the superiority of Chinese, Korean and Japanese ethnicities.
The 17-year-old had identified five mosques in Jurong West, Clementi, Margaret Drive, Admiralty Road and Beach Road as potential targets and
planned to kill at least 100 Muslims as they were leaving after Friday prayers.
He had been influenced by anti-Semitic content online and fantasised about killing Jews, but did not have any concrete attack plans.
An increasing variety of online platforms used by youth in self-radicalisation cases here is also of concern, said ISD.
It added that self-radicalisation remains a key domestic terrorism threat, with 60 self-radicalised people issued orders under the ISA since 2015.
Of these, 48 were Singaporeans.
Singapore adopts a whole-of-society approach to counter extremism, combining preventive measures such as public outreach with rehabilitation and reintegration programmes.
ISD works with government agencies and grassroots and community partners to conduct outreach across different segments of society, to raise public awareness on the threat of terrorism and online radicalisation.
It stressed the importance of knowing how to spot signs of radicalisation and the need to
report at-risk individuals early .
Some of these signs include expressing support for terrorist groups online, frequent surfing of radical websites and making remarks that promote ill-will or hatred towards people of other races, religions or communities.
ISD said public vigilance is critical to combating the terrorism threat, and early reporting enables the person to receive timely help.
This maximises the chances of the individual's successful rehabilitation before he or she becomes more deeply rooted in radical ideologies.
Since 2002, ISD has issued ISA orders against 148 Singaporeans for terrorism-related conduct.
Of these, 102 were issued orders of detention, while 46 were issued restriction orders.
Of those detained, about four out of five detainees had made good progress in their rehabilitation, leading to 85 of them being released.
Of those issued with restriction orders, 39 have had their orders lapse.
ISD said most of these Singaporeans have found stable jobs since their release.
It said countering terrorism is everyone's responsibility.
'The ever-evolving threat of terrorism is real and demands unwavering vigilance, cooperation and resilience from every sector of society,' said ISD.
It added that 'every action taken, every report made and every initiative launched' bring Singapore one step closer to a safer, more united nation.
Members of the public are encouraged to take part in
the SGSecure movement and learn how to spot suspicious behaviours and signs of radicalisation, and how to respond if caught in a terror attack.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AsiaOne
2 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Israel to decide next steps in Gaza after ceasefire talks collapse, World News
JERUSALEM — Benjamin Netanyahu will convene his security cabinet this week to decide on Israel's next steps in Gaza following the collapse of indirect ceasefire talks with Hamas, with one senior Israeli source suggesting more force could be an option. Last Saturday, during a visit to the country, US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had said he was working with the Israeli government on a plan that would effectively end the war in Gaza. But Israeli officials have also floated ideas including expanding the military offencive in Gaza and annexing parts of the shattered enclave. The failed ceasefire talks in Doha had aimed to clinch agreements on a US-backed proposal for a 60-day truce, during which aid would be flown into Gaza and half of the hostages Hamas is holding would be freed in exchange for Palestinian prisoners jailed in Israel. After Netanyahu met Witkoff last Thursday, a senior Israeli official said that "an understanding was emerging between Washington and Israel," of a need to shift from a truce to a comprehensive deal that would "release all the hostages, disarm Hamas, and demilitarise the Gaza Strip," — Israel's key conditions for ending the war. A source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Sunday that the envoy's visit was seen in Israel as "very significant." But later on Sunday, the Israeli official signalled that pursuit of a deal would be pointless, threatening more force: "An understanding is emerging that Hamas is not interested in a deal and therefore the prime minister is pushing to release the hostages while pressing for military defeat. Israel's Channel 12 on Monday cited an official from his office as saying that Netanyahu was inclining towards expanding the offencive and seizing the entire Palestinian enclave. "Strategic clarity" What a "military defeat" might mean, however, is up for debate within the Israeli leadership. Some Israeli officials have suggested that Israel might declare it was annexing parts of Gaza as a means to pressure the militant group. Others, like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir want to see Israel impose military rule in Gaza before annexing it and re-establishing the Jewish settlements Israel evicted 20 years ago. The Israeli military, which has pushed back at such ideas throughout the war, was expected on Tuesday to present alternatives that include extending into areas of Gaza where it has not yet operated, according to two defence officials. While some in the political leadership are pushing for expanding the offencive, the military is concerned that doing so will endanger the 20 hostages who are still alive, the officials said. Israeli Army Radio reported on Monday that military chief Eyal Zamir has become increasingly frustrated with what he describes as a lack of strategic clarity by the political leadership, concerned about being dragged into a war of attrition with Hamas militants. A spokesperson for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) declined to comment on the report but said that the military has plans in store. "We have different ways to fight the terror organisation, and that's what the army does," Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani said. On Tuesday, Qatar and Egypt endorsed a declaration by France and Saudi Arabia outlining steps toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which included a call on Hamas to hand over its arms to the Western-backed Palestinian Authority. Hamas has repeatedly said it won't lay down arms. But it has told mediators it was willing to quit governance in Gaza for a non-partisan ruling body, according to three Hamas officials. It insists that the post-war Gaza arrangement must be agreed upon among the Palestinians themselves and not dictated by foreign powers. Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar suggested on Monday that the gaps were still too wide to bridge. "We would like to have all our hostages back. We would like to see the end of this war. We always prefer to get there by diplomatic means, if possible. But of course, the big question is, what will be the conditions for the end of the war?" he told journalists in Jerusalem. [[nid:720969]]
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
Trump's deal-making with other elite US schools scrambles Harvard negotiations
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – By the start of last week, Harvard University had signalled its readiness to meet President Donald Trump's demand that it spend US$500 million (S$643 million) to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its crucial research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: US$50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state workforce development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marvelled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' Ms May Mailman, the top White House official under Mr Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinise its behaviour. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Aug 4 that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government – after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr Trump – would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending US$500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University – which agreed to a US$200 million fine in July – to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests lin 2024. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and workforce training programs instead of the federal government, Mr Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward workforce programmes aligns with some of what Mr Trump has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking US$3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after the Times reported the US$500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its US$53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up US$7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip US$9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened US$510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its US$50 million settlement payment toward workforce programmes of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fuelled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant US$500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. In July, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programmes, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Ms Paula Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on July 31, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard President Alan Garber and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Professor Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Prof Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Ms Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a US$53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?' NYTIMES
AsiaOne
3 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Pritam gets candid with kids' questions on his worst subjects and favourite song in radio interview, Singapore News
Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh was 'grilled' by several 'special guests' on Monday (Aug 4), in his first interview on local radio since the 2025 General Election in May. The Leader of the Opposition appeared on Kiss92 FM's morning programme with DJs Glenn Ong and Angelique Teo, where he took questions from eight young Singaporeans aged between four to 11. In a segment titled 'The Kids Ask Mr Pritam', one young Singaporean asked if politics in Singapore is fair and if all parties played by the same rules. In response, Singh said: 'I think that we should always endeavour to develop and nourish a system where the rules are the same for everyone. 'I would like to think that is a road we are on, and we should remain on that road.' There were also candid responses to questions such as his worst subject in primary school. 'I was not too thrilled about mathematics,' he said. 'Which is very sad because I actually loved mathematics.' He also revealed that he is 'not much of a dancer', when asked what music choices. 'U2… Where the Streets Have No Name… I just like The Joshua Tree. I think it's a fantastic album,' he said. Singh's light-hearted interview, which he said was his first radio interview, came after a recent back and forth with the People's Action Party. The latter had questioned his 'deliberate decision' for speaking about Singapore's politics on a Malaysian podcast, all while 'previously rejecting invitations to appear on local podcasts'. In response, the WP said that its leader's podcast had no detrimental impact on Singapore's national interests, and that the ruling party is 'opposing for the sake of opposing'. [[nid:717673]] Chingshijie@
