Comparative Analysis of

Security Laws in Singapore

and Philippines

Presented by:

Macalinao, Hersheys
Manao, Jim Paul
Santiago, Maxime Alexi
Sanz, Ashley Gwen

Submitted to:

Prof. GERALD P. EDAÑO

Faculty In-charge

September 13, 2021

 Introduction

In today’s 21st century, it is safe to say that terrorism is immortal in nature. According
to Mesadieu (2013), one of the primary issues with terrorism is defining it universally, but the
more challenging aspect is how to combat a phenomenon that has yet to be defined. And with
the emerging threats of terrorism looming among different states of the international system,
their measures on national security had been affected as it is believed that various events
during the previous years had shaped the nature of how they could adapt from these existing
dangers. The definition of terrorism may still be subject to the view of the people of the society;
citizens of these states are to see the law’s applicability as these international actors increase
the effectiveness in combatting terrorism transnationally, even in how it is perceived relative
to the nation. As people discover the true nature of terrorism, the challenge now resides on
how they engage in the existing phenomenon in the best possible manner. In some countries,
the best solution is to establish and pass National Security Laws that have jurisdiction over
bioterrorism, cyber law, civil liberties, intelligence law, maritime law, and foreign relations. In
context, security law is defined by Osisanya as the laws that are established by states for the
purpose of catering for the defense and protection of their citizens.

Among the states which are known to have enacted national security laws for the
purpose of protection from external and internal threats are Singapore and the Philippines. As
reassuring as this National Security Law may sound, there are still significant issues that have
been raised by many, as cited by Santos (2021) and Zee (2011): vagueness, exertion of too
much executive power, pretrial punishments and the lack of safeguards protecting people's
fundamental liberties. Therefore, it was supported by Cheong (2006), who pointed out the
features that are in common with these security laws as he stated that first, it is a concentration
of an expansion of executive power. Second, erosion of political and civil liberties, third, judicial
procedures are weakened, and lastly, he noted that it focuses on pre-emptive actions against
the terrorists. The question that remained and hoped to be answered is whether or not the
National Security Law implemented in the said countries is beneficial and is upholding its main
aim; to protect the citizens, their rights and their freedom, and whether or not this law imposes
more significant threats to the country.

1.1 Research Question

With the aforementioned narrative, the study aims to answer the following question:
1. How dangerous are the security laws of the Philippines and Singapore?

1.2 Hypothesis/Assumptions
H0: There is no significant difference in the level of danger of security laws in the Philippines
and Singapore.
Ha: There is a significant difference in the level of danger of security laws in the Philippines
and Singapore.

1.3 Review of Related Literatures

Singapore’s national security strategy aims, principally, to prevent threats to national

security from developing in the first instance; protect Singapore against the more likely threats;
respond to such threats if prevention and protection should fail, and achieve a quick recovery
to return Singapore to a state of normalcy.Tan (2003) stated that, in order to achieve secured
networking and inter-agency coordination. The key tenet and cornerstone to achieve the
desired national security strategy are building strong and durable bridges for a more robust
national security network. Singapore recognizes that the war against terrorism cannot be won
by the efforts of one country alone. Nations need to build a united front against terrorism. Yet,
ultimately, the ability to deal with terrorism effectively depends not just on the lines of defence
provided, the number of terrorists arrested, or the amount of money spent. Moreover, the
Government needs to work with like-minded countries from the region and beyond in
 intelligence exchanges, capacity-building activities and counter-terrorism operations. In
formulating the national security strategy, it is also needed to scrutinize the counter-terrorism
experiences of other countries, taking essential perspectives and insights. Singapore
recognizes that the war against terrorism cannot be won by the efforts of one country alone
(Laksmana, 2004). For a number of decades, terrorism has been a terrible menace in the
Philippines. The Duterte administration promised that the ATA 2020 is an effective means to
curb terrorism in the country. It guaranteed to the people that the new law should not be used
against political opponents, activists, protesters, and people who air their grievances against
the government. It also assured that no human rights violations shall be committed concerning
the law. To combat terrorism effectively, Senator Lacson said that the provisions of ATA 2020
were based on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, a counter-terrorism
measure calling on all UN members to criminalize the provision of funds to all terrorists
effectively denying terrorists safe financial haven anywhere. According to Holmes (2015), in
the twentieth century, Totalitarianism was a significant concept. While most political scientists
have different perspectives, some would say that the term summarized the critical features of
fascism (inc. Nazism)and communism.

1.4 Theoretical Framework/Conceptual Framework

Securitisation Theory. In 2017, McGlinchey, cited an excerpt from his book International
Relations Theory:
“Securitisation theory shows us that national security policy is not a natural given, but
carefully designated by politicians and decision-makers. According to securitisation theory,
political issues are constituted as extreme security issues to be dealt with urgently when they
have been labelled as ‘dangerous’, ‘menacing’, ‘threatening’, ‘alarming’ and so on by a
‘securitizing actor’ who has the social and institutional power to move the issue ‘beyond
politics. So, security issues are not simply ‘out there’ but rather must be articulated as
problems by securitizing actors. As provided by the theory, securitizing actors refers to the
people such as the government, law enforcers and the military who are therefore responsible
for looking out for the state’s security from external and internal threats. These labeled threats
as referred to the study are the acts of terrorism. In the given statement, the theory would be
used to examine the security laws enacted by the state’s government upon their interpretation
of the existing threats possibly affecting the state and law enforcement’s role in carrying out
the provisions of this law. The researcher will also use the theory as the basis for comparison
among the factors that are provided upon the law based on the decision of the lawmakers and
what dangers does this imply towards the subjects and non-subjects of these laws.

Input Desired Outcome Outcome

Grounds for
Securitizing Actor Arrest

Judicial Level of Danger to

Anti-terror Act Involvement the people subjected
under the law.
Safeguard
against arrest
International and detention
Security Act

Punishments
that are enacted
Securitizing Actor
 Upon the framework that was given, the presence of these contributory factors have aimed
to extinguish the threats of terrorism that could possibly damage the internal affairs of these states.
However, the nature of these laws can also determine the aspect on how it affects the lives of its
citizens as pertaining to its level of danger.
2.1 Methods
The study adopts the use of the Institutional Approach as a basis for comparing the
levels of danger that is being imposed by the security laws of the countries Singapore and the
Philippines in means of wiping out terrorism and threats to national security. According to Sakhri
(2021), this type of approach gives importance to institutions in determining political behaviours
and outcomes, given that institutions represent an independent change that affects the
determination of who are the actors who are allowed to participate in the political arena. It
determines the pattern of strategies they produce, influencing the choices and beliefs they hold
about the possible and the desirable. In using this kind of approach, as Sakhri (2021) further noted,
“the attention was focused on the state and its legislative, executive, and judicial institutions, and
the study was marked by a formal character that concerned with official institutions and in which
the descriptive, historical and constitutional view prevailed.

2.2 Data Matrix

Analysis, Conclusions and Acknowledge all

Recommendations Sources

Results and Discussions

3.1 Presentation of Data of Findings
Upon the results garnered by comparing the security laws that were enacted in Singapore and
the Philippines, the data was gathered through the basis of comparing their provisions and their
impact towards the internal affairs of these states. Among them are their basis of grounds of arrest,
judicial involvement, safeguards against arrest and detention, basis of threat and terrorism as well
as the punishment that are included in the laws. Among these things are presented in a table form
to present the data gathered by the researchers:
 Basis of Anti-Terror Act of 2020 (Philippines)
Comparison
Grounds for  Threat to Commit terrorism
Arrest  Planning, training, preparing, and facilitating
the commission of terrorism
 Conspiracy to commit terrorism,
 Proposal to commit terrorism
 Inciting to commit terrorism
 Recruitment and providing material support to
terrorists (Anti-Terror Act of 2020)
Judicial  The authorizing person of the Court of Appeals
Involvement issues a written order to conduct the Surveillance
of suspects, Interception and Recording of
Communications.
 The court issues a Hold Departure Order to a
person whose evidence of his or her guilt is strong
upon committing the acts defined and penalized by
the ATA restricting his or rights to travel.
 The court shall issue a warrant of arrest for the
arrest or apprehension of the person upon
committing the violation defined the ATA.
 If arrest was done without a judicial warrant, the
court must be notified about arrest that was
committed.
 Where the court has determined the probable
cause upon the verified application written by the
Department of Justice with the authority of the ATC
The court will immediately commence and conduct
continuous hearing upon the case of the arrested
person.
 The Supreme Court designates certain branches of
the Regional Trial Courts as anti-terror courts.
(Anti-Terror Act of 2020)
.
Safeguards  The arrested person charged with or suspected of
against arrest committing any of the acts defined and penalized
and detention by the ATA is to be informed by the nature and the
cause of his or her arrest.
 The person arrested is given the right to have a
competent and independent counsel preferably of
the person’s choice or if he or she cannot afford
one, the PAO shall appoint free legal assistance to
the represent person.
 Prohibition of Torture or Coercion in Investigation
and Interrogation
 Prohibition of Furnishing False evidence, Forged
document or Spurious evidence against the
detained person
 Presumption of Innocence
 Due regard for the welfare of any suspects who
are elderly, pregnant, persons with disability,
women and children while they are under
investigation, interrogation or detention.
International Security Act
(Singapore)
 Threat of communalism,
 Publication of incendiary
materials
 communism
 espionage
 foreign interference
 Recruiting and training
terrorist fighters (International
Security Act of 1963)
 The ISA was amended in 1989
to abolish judicial reviews as
well as appeals to the Privy
Council. Henceforth, with the
exception of procedural
matters, government decisions
taken under the ISA are not
subject to questioning by any
court of law.
 Upon the consent of the
minister, courts can conduct
trials and hearings towards the
person who are deemed to
have committed the act
prohibited by the law.
 Investigators can arrest and
conduct surveillance against
the suspect without judicial
involvement
 The person arrested shall be
informed of the grounds of his
or her detention
 The person detained is
informed of his or her right to
make representations against
the detention order to the
advisory board (does not apply
to non-Singaporean residents).
 Presumption of Innocence
Punishments Minimum penalty : 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of
enacted 100,000 php (minor offenses linked to terrorism)
Maximum Penalty: Life Imprisonment with no benefits of
parole and RA 10592 (Anti-Terror Act of 2020)
Minimum penalty: 1year of
imprisonment with a fine of 1000 USD
(minor offenses linked to terrorism
Maximum Penalty: Life Imprisonment
with no benefits of parole (International
Security Act of 1963)

3.2 Interpretation of Data

Among the data that was gathered and provided, the data presents the practices that are observed
as well as the provisions that is therefore located in the specified laws. Among these are:
3.2.1 Grounds for Arrest

The security laws of both Singapore and the Philippines had provided its own basis in the
establishment on the standards on who are subjected to arrest, detention and apprehension based
upon the conditions on the actions that are considered a threat against the security of these states.
The Philippine Anti-Terror Act had specified that any actions inciting the act of terrorism such as
training, recruitment of terrorist fighters, providing material support as well as conspiring of
committing terrorist acts are among the things that the government, who is therefore the
securitizing actor perceive as a threat and created the laws to extinguish the existing problem.
Singapore on the other hand considers communism and communalism as terrorist acts perceived
as a threat detrimental to the internal affairs of the state considering its history ever since it became
independent from British colony. It is also pointed out that foreign interdependence and espionage
is also a major threat to Singapore and this involvement may be in the act of recruiting and training
of Singaporean citizens to become terrorist fighters or causing damage to its internal affairs.
3.2.2 Judicial Involvement
The Judicial involvement under the effect these of laws is another factor in comparing
security laws of the Philippines and Singapore. The data provided that in the Philippines, the courts
are responsible for issuing consent on the conduct for arresting or surveillance against the person
who had committed the violations specified by the ATA. They also have the role to hear the cases
of the person detained upon determining the probable cause from verified application filed by the
DOJ. The hearing would by means be done in a speedy, continuous trial. Meanwhile in Singapore,
there would be no judicial review in any courts upon the decision of the minister or president
regarding to any question relating to the compliance with any procedural requirement.
(International Security Act of 1963). Unless allowed by the minister, the court can hear and try the
case of the aforementioned suspect.

3.2.3 Safeguards against Arrest and Detention

Security laws of Singapore and the Philippines had defined the safeguard of a person
regarding his or her arrest and detention from the violation that they had committed. The things in
common about them is that first, the person that is detained shall be informed of the grounds of
their arrest which is done by the authorizing officer specifically, law enforcers and the military.
Second, both laws recognize the presumption of innocence whenever a decision is not made by
the court or the minister (done in Singapore) and that, the punishment specified by the law cannot
be implemented to that person/s without a judgement. And lastly, a person who is arrested has the
right to challenge the nature of his or her arrest through the means of representation, despite
Singapore’s lack of court hearings (Tan, 2002) due to the minister deciding most of the case.
However, the person can be tried by the court upon the consent of the minister. In the Philippines
the content of the ATA had pointed out numerous safeguards of the detained such as the
prohibition of torture, coercion as well as due to those who are vulnerable deemed as suspects.

3.2.4 Punishment enacted

The punishment provided under these laws are therefore depending on the act that
the individual has committed, however looking at the minimum and maximum punishments
enacted by both laws, It is seen that Singapore’s International Security Act detains an
individual who had done minor offenses under the law for a year and for a fine of 1,000 dollars
meanwhile, the Philippine Anti-Terror law had stated in its provisions that the minimum years
for an individual to be imprisoned is 10 years and a fine of 100,000 Philippine pesos. However,
both states penalize an individual who committed grave acts of terror through life
imprisonment.
3.3 Analysis

Upon the data that was gathered, the establishment of the security laws of both
Singapore and Philippines are shaped upon the decision of the securitizing actor as a result
of the perceived threats including the form of the act of terror. As a result, these actors referring
to the state’s government had established the Anti-terror Act of the Philippines and the
International Security Act of Singapore. Among its enactment, the provisions of these laws
were made to deal with the issue existing at hand and were made to define the scope of its
implementation to society. this would now involve the comparison of their nature in terms of
how they were practiced. First, in order to effectively conduct the law they must describe the
threats that are a concern towards the security of the state, the Philippines as aforementioned
above, defined that any related action to terrorism should be punishable which is the same
case for Singapore who conceive communism and communalism as a threat. Second, how
are the judiciary involved, these opens the question of due process , hearings and the proper
conduct of investigation. Upon the revealed data, Singapore upon prioritizing its security
measures against the agents of these threats limits court hearings and conducts against the
suspect and that Philippines being a democratic state still honor the role of the courts. Third
safeguards of the detained this is now perceived as their protection from abuse and lastly the
punishment enacted to the offense committed where Philippines and Singapore had set
standards on what punishments that are to be implemented. These nature upon these laws
would now determine the level of danger towards its subject.
3.4 Conclusion
Therefore, researchers concluded that there is a significant difference between the
level dangers of security laws of Singapore and the Philippines. Upon the findings of these
research, security laws of Philippines and Singapore have different nature upon its conducts
on their implementations and rules. First, is the role of the judiciary, the Philippines it is
therefore provided that the Philippines recognize the roles of the court in comparison to
Singapore where court decision are limited. Second, Singapore identifies fewer safeguards
for the protection of the detained while Philippines had provided numerous rights of the person
but still remains to be lacking. It is therefore alarming that Singapore’s authority can arrest and
conduct surveillance to the person without warrants and written order. Upon deliberation the
levels of danger of the laws implemented by Singapore is more threatening towards the
welfare of the person who are subjected in this law in comparison to the Philippines.
References (APA 7th edition)
Journal Articles

Cheong, D. (2006). Selling Security: The War on Terrorism and the Internal Security Act of

Singapore. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 23(1), 28–56.

https://doi.org/10.22439/cjas.v23i1.691

Gonzales, C. (2020). A Closer Look at the Philippine Anti-Terror Law. Asia Pacific Law

Review, 6, 258–272.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-

8535;jsessionid=956132F3DE76EEB120577E99EE74CE9C.f04t01

Laksmana, E. A. (2017). Threats and civil–military relations: explaining Singapore’s “trickle

down” military innovation. Defense & Security Analysis, 33(4), 347–365.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2017.1377369

Tan, A. (2002). Terrorism in Singapore: Threat and Implications. Contemporary Security

Policy, 23(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/713999756

Taureck, R. (2006). Securitization theory and securitization studies. Journal of International

Relations and Development, 9(1), 53–61.

https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800072

E-Book
Wright, J. D. (2015). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.)
[E-book]. Elsevier Gezondheidszorg.

National Security Coordination Center. (2021). The Fight Against Terror Singapore’s National
Security Strategy. Atlas Associates PTE Singapore.

McGlinchey, S. (2017). International relations. E-IR Foundations.

Rajah, J. (2012). Authoritarian rule of law: Legislation, discourse and legitimacy in

Singapore (1st ed.) [E-book]. Cambridge University Press.
Online Articles
PRISM, National Defense University. (2018, November 8). Sending in the Cavalry: The

Growing Militarization of Counterterrorism in Southeast Asia.

https://cco.ndu.edu/News/Article/1682045/sending-in-the-cavalry-the-growing-

militarization-of-counterterrorism-in-southe

Osisanya, S. (n.d.). National Security versus Global Security. United Nations. Retrieved
September 11, 2021, from https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/national-
security-versus-global-security