Part 5 Singapore Vs Saudi Arabia Deradicalization Program

How do you un-make an extremist?
In the global fight against terrorism, "hard" power (military action) has often failed to address the ideological roots of violence. This led to the rise of "soft" power: state-sponsored deradicalization programs.
But not all programs are created equal. This video provides a deep comparative analysis of two of the world's most prominent—and fundamentally different—models: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and The Republic of Singapore.
We explore why Singapore's model boasts a recidivism rate of around 2%, while the Saudi model struggles with a 10-20% failure rate, including high-profile "graduates" who immediately returned to leadership roles in groups like Al-Qaeda.
The answer lies in the critical, and often misunderstood, difference between two goals:
Disengagement: A behavioral change. The person stops the violence but may still hold the same beliefs.
Deradicalization: A cognitive change. The person genuinely rejects the extremist ideology.
This analysis argues that the Saudi model, despite its resources, primarily achieves temporary disengagement, while the Singaporean model is one of the few in the world to successfully achieve genuine deradicalization.
🇸🇦 Section 1: The Saudi Arabian Model (Munasaha)
We deconstruct the famous Mohammed bin Nayef Center (PRAC), a "resort-like" facility with swimming pools and extensive recreational activities. This "soft" façade is a deliberate counter-propaganda and soft-power tool.
The Method: The core of the Munasaha (Counseling) program is theological re-education. Detainees are engaged in religious dialogues with a roster of state-employed clerics.
The Fatal Flaw: This model is trapped in a fundamental ideological paradox. The Saudi state's legitimacy is rooted in Wahhabism (a form of Salafism). The extremists they are trying to "cure" (like Al-Qaeda and ISIS) are Jihadi-Salafists, drawing from the same foundational movement.
The Result: A state cleric cannot debunk the extremist's core ideology without also undermining the state's own legitimacy. The detainee sees the cleric as a "palace scholar" with zero credibility, encouraging superficial compliance (taqiyya) to "pass the test" and secure release. The program ultimately settles for behavioral disengagement, not ideological change.
🇸🇬 Section 2: The Singaporean Model (A Holistic Partnership)
In response to the 2001 Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) plot, Singapore architected a "whole-of-society" framework that is arguably the world's most successful. It is built on three pillars that attack the problem from every angle.
Pillar 1: Religious Rehabilitation (The RRG) This is the model's structural genius. The secular Singaporean state does not conduct the religious debate. It outsources it to the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG)—a voluntary, independent, and highly respected group of mainstream community scholars. This separation gives the messenger genuine credibility, allowing for a real theological dialogue to occur.
Pillar 2: Psychological Rehabilitation (ISD) State psychologists and counselors address the non-ideological drivers of radicalization. They use evidence-based models to tackle the individual's "why"—a lack of belonging, low mental resilience, inability to cope with life stressors, or poor critical thinking skills.
Pillar 3: Social Rehabilitation (The ACG) The Inter-Agency Aftercare Group (ACG) provides "throughcare" for the individual and their entire family. While the detainee is incarcerated, the ACG provides financial aid, housing support, job placements, and school bursaries for their children. This prevents "second-generation" radicalization, builds immense trust, and systematically rebuilds a pro-social life for the detainee to return to.
📊 Section 3: The Verdict: Why the Disparity?
The Saudi model fails because its messenger (the state cleric) has no credibility. It's a state-centric program trapped in an ideological contradiction, treating only the theological symptom.
The Singaporean model succeeds because it is a holistic, society-centric framework. It correctly diagnoses radicalization as a multi-faceted problem—a crisis of Needs, Narratives, and Networks—and deploys a specific, credible partner to solve each one.
However, the Singaporean model is not a perfect, scalable solution. Its success is deeply tied to resource-intensive, customized care and the use of the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for detention without trial—a trade-off between civil liberties and long-term security that many other nations would not be willing to make.
#Deradicalization #CounterTerrorism #Singapore #SaudiArabia #PoliticalScience