such as the 2001 Jemaah Islamiyah bomb plot, and no one had been detained ‘only
for their political beliefs’. The ISA remained relevant and was used in the first half
of 2011 to detain three individuals for terrorism-related activities.^33 Rejecting calls to
abolish the ISA, the government insists that the ISA, ‘as an instrument of last resort’,
remains necessary ‘to keep Singapore safe and secure’.^34 In parliament in October
2011 , Deputy PM Teo Chee Hean supported retaining the ISA, with its pre-emptive
powers, which a Terrorism Act would not provide, given the nature of contempor-
ary security threats, including radicalised ‘lone wolf’ Singapore jihadists. Where
judicial review would expose sensitive information, disclose intelligence sources or
exacerbate a volatile situation, it was not an option.^35
While Singapore and Malaysia share a common constitutional genealogy,^36 their
fundamental-liberties jurisprudence increasingly diverges in practice.^37
Other important developments concern the continued priority to actively
manage racial and religious harmony within a plural society, through the calibrated
application of both ‘hard’ measures like the Sedition Act, and more relational
measures where the government invokes ‘soft constitutional law’
38
(non-binding
norms articulated in a written instrument which shape expectations of constitu-
tional actors) to mediate disputes with a religious dimension.
39
That not all consti-
tutional disputes are litigated or subject to legal regulation reflects a form of
president, who may ‘veto’ a detention order, where the advisory board recommends release
and the detaining authority rejects this, under Art. 151 ( 4 ).(^33) Statement, Ministry of Home Affairs, 12 September 2011 (Further Detentions and Release
under the ISA).
(^34) Statement, Ministry of Home Affairs, 23 September 2011 (MHA Press Statement on ISA).
(^35) ‘DPM Teo: Terrorism Act Lacks Pre-emptive Powers of ISA’,Straits Times, 20 October
2011 , 1.
(^36) The drafters of the Malaysian Constitution drew substantially from English constitutional
traditions, with some Indian, Australian and American influences. The Privy Council
noted inOng Ah Chuanv.PP( 1980 – 1 ) Singapore Law Reports (SLR) 48 at 61 – 2 , that the
Partivfundamental liberties were ‘identical with similar provisions in the Constitution
of Malaysia’. See J.M. Fernando,The Making of the Malayan Constitution(Malaysia:
MBRAS Monograph 31 , 2001 ), p. 212.
(^37) On divergent interpretations of religious profession rights, compareNappalliv.ITE,[ 1999 ]
2 SLR 569 , with theLina Joy litigation,[ 2004 ] 2 MLJ 119 ;[ 2007 ] 4 MLJ 585 : Malaysian
courts have followed Indian jurisprudence in including the right to livelihood within the
‘right to life’:Tan Tek Sengv.SPP[ 1996 ] 1 MLJ 261.
(^38) Li-ann Thio, ‘Soft constitutional law in non-liberal Asian constitutional democracies’
( 2010 ) 8 ( 4 )ICON 766.
(^39) Disputes may involve two religious groups or a mischief-seeking secularist group invoking
the spectre of religion against a group with an agenda it disagrees with, to stir disquiet
amongst other religious communities: see Thio Li-ann, ‘Between Eden and Armageddon:
navigating “religion” and “politics” in Singapore’ ( 2009 ) SJLS 365 – 405 ; Thio Li-ann,
‘Contentious liberty: regulating religious propagation in a religiously diverse secular
democracy’ ( 2010 ) SJLS 484 – 515 ; Li-ann Thio, ‘Relational constitutionalism and the
management of inter-religious disputes: the Singapore “Secularism with a Soul” model’
( 2012 ) 2 Oxford J. of Law and Religion 1.