Forum: Do more to prepare for social aftermath of terror attacks

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s warning that radicalisation has become more complex underscores the importance of safeguarding Singapore’s social cohesion (Radicalisation threat now more complex, building trust remains key to S’pore’s cohesion: PM Wong, Oct 14).

Yet, beyond preventing terrorist attacks, we should also consider another critical question: How prepared are we to manage the communal repercussions of an attack?

International experience offers sobering lessons.

In Christchurch, New Zealand, a white supremacist murdered 51 Muslim worshippers in 2019 and live-streamed his attack. The attack demonstrated how terrorism could exploit digital platforms to amplify hatred far beyond national borders.

In Britain, the fatal stabbing of three young girls in Southport in 2024 was followed by widespread disorder after false online claims about the attacker’s identity circulated.

Anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim hostility escalated, illustrating how misinformation can transform an isolated act of violence into a broader communal crisis.

These incidents highlight an often overlooked dimension of counter-terrorism: The danger does not necessarily end when an attacker is apprehended. Rumours, retaliatory sentiments and the collective blaming of entire communities can inflict further damage on social cohesion.

Singapore has invested considerably in interfaith understanding, crisis preparedness and community partnerships. Initiatives such as the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles, now known as Harmony Circles, provide important foundations.

Can we go further by regularly testing our capacity to manage the social consequences of a terrorist incident?

One possibility is to conduct coordinated, scenario-based exercises involving community leaders, schools, religious organisations and digital platforms. For example, a simulated attack could be accompanied by fabricated social media posts falsely implicating a particular religious or ethnic community. Participants would have to respond to rapidly spreading misinformation, reassure affected communities and prevent retaliatory hostility.

Such exercises could assess not only the speed of official communication, but also whether trusted community voices can counter falsehoods before they become entrenched.

Singapore’s counter-terrorism preparedness rightly emphasises preventing attacks and responding to their immediate consequences. Equal attention should be devoted to protecting the relationships between communities in the hours and days that follow.

Ultimately, the success of terrorism should not be measured solely by the physical destruction it causes, but also by whether it succeeds in turning neighbours against one another.

Irwan Jamil