Families and friends are often the ones to spot early warning signs of self-radicalisation, but fears over consequences and misunderstandings may keep them silent.

A person in handcuffs. (File photo: iStock)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

But some people may not sound the alarm on their loved ones, as they do not want them arrested or would prefer to handle the situation themselves, the Internal Security Department (ISD) told CNA.

Contrary to such beliefs, reporting them to the authorities early will allow them to receive help in a timely manner, said the agency.

Experts noted that the inaction is typically not driven by indifference, but by genuine care and a fear of misdecisions or repercussions on that person.

“ISD understands the concerns and assures members of the public that when a report is made, it will conduct checks to establish the veracity of the information,” said the agency.

“No further action will be taken if its investigations do not find the person to be radicalised.”

If a person is found to be in the early stages of radicalisation, they may not be dealt with under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and instead be referred for counselling, said the ISD.

This reporting gap was recently exposed in the case of a 14-year-old boy who was dealt with under the ISA after becoming self-radicalised online. While his family members and friends were aware of his extremist views, none of them reported him.

Previous cases dealt with by the ISD over the past three years also saw families and friends noticing warning signs, yet they did not sound the alarm.

“Some may choose not to report their loved ones as they may be worried that their concerns may be unfounded,” said the ISD.

The agency said that as part of investigations, it may interview the individual’s family members and friends to gather more information on their activities and whether they had noticed anything amiss.

The investigations seek to ascertain if the individual had acted alone or tried to influence others with radical views.

The identity of the informer will be protected, said the agency.

The fear of the unknown is a key reason why people may not report their loved ones, experts told CNA.

“A major barrier is the fear that involving authorities will lead directly to the arrest, prosecution, and long-term imprisonment of their loved one, rather than help,” said S Rajaratnam School of International Studies’ professor of security studies Rohan Gunaratna.

Ms Shahrany Hassan, founder of local non-profit The Whitehatters that facilitates community dialogue, said many people do not fully understand what the deradicalisation or intervention process involves.

“There’s a real worry that reporting means their loved one will be immediately criminalised, detained indefinitely, or ‘marked for life’,” she said.

Experts noted that Singapore’s approach is largely preventive and rehabilitative, involving counselling, religious guidance and family support.

Professor Gunaratna, who has conducted training for those in the Religious Rehabilitation Group, said the ISD’s rehabilitation approach has been fine-tuned over the past two decades to stay ahead of the evolving terrorism threat.

Families also fear the social stigma, community judgment and shame that is associated with having a relative who is radicalised, said experts.

“Concerns about how the family may be viewed by the community, schools, or employers often weigh heavily,” said Dr Jolene Jerard, executive director of public safety consultancy Centinel.

Themes of loyalty also come up when people are deciding whether to report their loved ones who they suspect may have been radicalised.

Prof Gunaratna noted that some also fear that reporting a loved one would end up pushing them away permanently, causing them to be lost entirely.

“Reporting to save a loved one is not betrayal but to protect the individual, family, community and country,” he said, adding that it actually prevents worse consequences.

“Like cancer, extremism is a dangerous threat to individual safety and family stability, thus reporting is an act of family- and self-preservation.”

To encourage more people to report their loved ones, experts advised reframing the process across society.

“It's not about surveillance or punishment. It's about interrupting harm early, to pull our youth back before real damage is done,” said Ms Shahrany.

Ms Nazhath Faheema, founder of the social harmony advocacy group hash.peace, said: “I have always struggled with the word ‘report’ in this context … The language itself creates emotional resistance and deep moral dilemmas.”

By framing the process as seeking help for those who have “become victims of influence by violent extremist ideologies”, it lowers the emotional cost involved and makes people more likely to step forward, explained Ms Faheema.

Ms Shahrany noted that if that help is framed as support rather than surrender, it may encourage those on the path towards radicalisation to reach out for assistance.

She said that people rarely self-report to authorities at the outset, and are more likely to speak first to someone they trust – intermediaries who can hold a safe space for them and guide them on their next steps responsibly.

“If seeking help is seen as ‘turning yourself in’, very few will do it … If the only visible response is detention or public exposure, people will stay silent,” she said.

Ms Shahrany added that Singapore society also needs to “normalise uncertainty” when it comes to informing the authorities of potential cases.

“We don't need absolute proof before raising concerns. It’s better to ask than to stay silent, supported by empathy and discretion, that makes the real difference,” she said.

The ISD told CNA that people should promptly report those they suspect to have been radicalised “even if you are unsure”.

“When a report is made, ISD will conduct checks to establish the veracity of the information and the identity of the informer will be protected.

“No further action will be taken if investigations do not find the person to be radicalised.”

The majority of individuals investigated for radicalisation so far had displayed early warning signs to their family and friends, it said. Those people close to them are best placed to notice changes in their behaviour.

Some also hope that they can address the problem themselves without the intervention of authorities, said experts.

“Many parents and peers believe that if they talk, monitor, or correct the behaviour quietly at home, things will improve,” said Ms Shahrany.

“Sometimes that works. But when the pull of online extremist content is strong, private efforts can be outpaced very quickly.”

They may also tend to be in denial and end up normalising their loved ones’ behaviour, added Dr Jerard.

“Early warning signs are often dismissed as ‘just curiosity’, ‘a phase’, or venting frustration, leading people to delay reporting until behaviours escalate and become extremely serious,” she said.

Ms Faheema said such a pattern could be due to the growing digital divide between parents and youths.

“In many households, parents are largely on Facebook and WhatsApp, while children and young people are immersed in TikTok, Discord, gaming platforms, and algorithm-driven spaces,” she said.

“This gap means that families are often unaware of the information diets, echo chambers, and values being internalised by those within the same household.”

She noted that such relational fragmentation is damaging within families and also in wider society.

“Too often, we reduce this to a ‘platform issue’ or assume it is simply about keeping up with technology. But the issue is not about mastering every new app or platform. None of us can realistically do that,” said Ms Faheema.

Loved ones of self-radicalised individuals need to report them because, in the haze of radicalisation, they would be unable to discern that their beliefs are wrong and harmful, said experts.

Exposure to online extremist material and terrorist propaganda distorts the judgment of those who consume them, said Ms Faheema.

“They may lack full awareness of how far their thinking has shifted, or may not recognise their own need for help,” she said.

The reality is that most people may not be able to independently determine whether a critical threshold has been crossed when it comes to self-radicalisation, said Dr Jerard.

Ms Faheema said that while most people may not always know what to look out for, “it is reasonable to expect that we can notice changes in the behaviour or speech of our loved ones”.

“Being vigilant should not mean constantly looking for trouble,” she noted.

“Rather, it is about having the care and attentiveness to recognise when young people in our families and communities are troubled, unsettled, or withdrawing into rigid and harmful ways of thinking.”

What makes things tricky is that radicalisation is not dramatic and often happens quietly online, which leaves parents, teachers and friends often not realising until quite late, said Ms Shahrany.

The threshold is not simply about having strong views, being angry or even saying things clumsily online about geopolitical issues, noted Ms Shahrany.

“People are emotional, they’re trying to make sense of real suffering. That, on its own, isn’t radicalisation,” she said.

Instead, the line is crossed when the conversation shifts in tone and direction, said Ms Shahrany.

“It’s no longer about understanding or empathy, but about justifying violence, dehumanising others, or feeling that harming others is somehow morally right or necessary,” she said.

Prof Gunaratna said that casual, edgy or frustrated comments cross the threshold of radicalisation when it begins to adopt a rigid us-versus-them ideology that justifies harm.

The gradual process is often also characterised by increasing social isolation and the adoption of scripted, extremist language, he noted.

Those being radicalised also typically use distinct jargon, conspiracy theories or symbols associated with known extremist groups, beyond just casual slang or sharing of popular memes, he added.

While regular people may undergo lifestyle changes such as changing hobbies or getting a new haircut, Prof Gunaratna said it is more drastic for radicalised individuals, who may suddenly change their appearance, dressing or diet to match a specific radical group's identity.

For the latest case of the 14-year-old who was picked up by the ISD, what raised red flags was probably not his curiosity or exposure to online content, as many young people also encounter that, said Ms Shahrany.

It was more likely the “gradual narrowing of his world view”, she added.

“He was consuming only one version of events, glorifying violence, and starting to see attacks as religiously justified,” she said.

“That shift – from asking questions to endorsing harm – is what really matters.”

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

Copyright© Mediacorp 2026. Mediacorp Pte Ltd. All rights reserved.

We know it's a hassle to switch browsers but we want your experience with CNA to be fast, secure and the best it can possibly be.

To continue, upgrade to a supported browser or, for the finest experience, download the mobile app.

Upgraded but still having issues? Contact us