Singapore is not like the US of A, there is no inherent mistrust of the government here unlike the early American leaders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who made sure the American constitution puts a limit to govt power.

The majority of the Singaporeans have the view that the govt is benevolent and whomever she choose to arrest must have been guilty. Until that viewpoint change, I am afraid the ISA is here to stay.

It is summed up by this subconscious thought from the average Singaporean, “Even if so and so rights has vanished due to the ISA, if it allows me to walk safely in the streets at 3am, so be it.”

The beauty of history is fact will be removed from myth.

Hi Kelvin Tan,

The Constitution and the laws of the United States was founded on the assumption that no government can be trusted. This is very much expected from its history and culture. Yet Singapore is an Asian country which emphasises the mutual trust between the Government and the People.

The mutual trust demands that not only faith in Government from the People, but also propriety from the Government to act in its capacity to secure the Common Good while exhibiting integrity in its dealings.

The PAP Government has done relatively well in this aspect but it still has a lot of room for improvement, in particular boosting welfare measures and political space for Opposition to reflect the need of the People and to build up political resilience.

As a country, we have become poorer, and will continue to do so. It is only a matter of time, a short time, before we are unable to afford the price of peace, order, and economic progress.

Singapore is a soft authoritarian state.

Don’t anyhow believe those people who say they regulate New Media with a light touch!Wait almost kena thrown into Gitmo,and when that fails,kena fixed!

http://pothepanda.xanga.com/703351636/police-abuse-cover-upvictim-charged-with-alledged-shoptheft-instead/

“Yet Singapore is an Asian country which emphasises the mutual trust between the Government and the People.”

I’m afraid the that the People trust the Government more than the Government trusts the People. And the most of the people have in effect given PAP a blank cheque to run the country. In other words, the PAP Government is trusted by the People until the Government loses that trust. The Singapore government, however, does not trust the people as much as the people trust them.

In the US, the Government has to win the trust of the people, as the underlying philosophy is that no Government can be trusted. But yet, I see the US government putting tremendous faith and trust in the people.

Thus, my thesis is that no mutual trust exists. Either the government is trusted by the people, or the people is trusted by the government. Singaporeans by and large have chosen the former, and Americans prefer the latter.

Things will change after LKY go to Heaven!

Singaporean are piss off by current state of the economy! Neither are we on par with the developed world or better than Taiwan or Korea!

Housing Price Inflated so much while Pay are the same! Polices only enriched the Ruling Class while Working Class are Suffering in Slient!

2) Dumb and Dumber on June 2nd, 2009 6.05 pm The beauty of history is fact will be removed from myth.///

If I may add, history is written by winners

I personally support a two-tier system:

1) 6-month detention for Singaporeans under the ISA
2) Indefinite detention for foreigners under the ISA.

The purpose is to discourage foreigners from collaborating with home-grown terrorists or recruiting Singaporeans for their cause.

The colonial masters of Malaya introduced a set of ‘Emergency Regulations’ in 1948, in response to the communist uprising during the Malayan Emergency. In 1960, three years after the independence of Malaya, the Malayan Emergency was declared over but the Internal Security Act was passed in its place with much of the same powers and Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman stated that the ISA would only be applied against only the remaining Communist insurgents. On its separation from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore retained the ISA.

There is a need to set up a commissions to investigate the reforms of ISA, to ensure that internal security remains relevant in the era of ‘post communist insurgents’ and to strengthen the internal security apparatus. What should be the strength of our internal security apparatus? Intelligence comprising of research and analysis, technical intelligence and various other agencies of intelligence gathering; and their coordination, intelligence assessment, dissemination, their weaponry, training, autonomy of our police forces etc. Such a commission could draw from the US, where the US Congress, put together a bipartisan 9/11 commission.

“Chia Thye Poh was placed under a 9-year bond to limit his movement within Sentosa after ISD released him from 23 years of detention.”

Wow, released only after 23 years of Detention???? Singaporean? Happened in this 1st world called Singapore? My singapore?

You mean finally there was Evidence that proves Beyond Reasonable Doubt his ‘crime’? I mean, so many decades have passed. Did they manage to find anything while he was locked for 23 years ?

Wow, I still could not believe such thingy happened in singapore? I heard many other examples exist.

Donaldson, I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with your suggestion #2:

“2) The cap of detention period under ISA should be further reduced from 2 years to 6 months, complemented by monthly review by the Advisory Board to consider the continuation of detention.

The Advisory Board should not be used to pronounce criminal charges against detainees.

Detainees should be deemed innocent until proven guilty.

…”

Deemed Innocent until proven guilty and yet detained for 6 months? That does not square up, imho. Where is the justice and how can an innocent victim of this injustice ever be compensated for it?

As it stands, any use of the ISA is likely the result of laziness from the police, the legislative branch and the judiciary. It is as if somehow, the police or our secret service (I assume the ISD) cannot conduct the necessary investigations to produce criminal evidence and publicly indict suspects in terrorism cases.

Imho, the ISA was an emergency measure and if there’s any merit for its retention and use, it should be for subsequent declared emergencies, nothing less.

I am stunned by this report. Kudos to the writer Donaldson Tan for his bravery and voicing up thus risking himself by sticking his neck out. I mean such articles may be viewed by many as sensitive issues.

I could not sleep thinking how the Father, the Son and or Daughter, Wife and relatives and friends may have felt or the mental torture felt by them during the 23 years ordeal? Is it just impact on 1 man or more lives are/were affected?

I can only wonder…….sigh…… Life is short. Lets be kind. to all living beings especially humans who also have flesh and blood and loved ones who care about them just like we do.

Just like to risk it by suggesting:

1. If not change the law, limit the detention duration to a 1 year. This duration should be sufficient and fair for finding evidence. 23 years????? omg.

if there is a barrier of distrust between govt & the people ISA should not be it, but sadly seems so.

ISD is not Internally Secretive Department.

I applaud the changes proposed by the author although I remain pessimistic about whether any changes would eventually be done. History have shown that the Singapore government prefers a policy of reactionary politics. The last case of alleged abuse of the ISA occurred over 20 years ago. There has been no public discourse about any other misuse of the ISA since then. As Kelvin Tan has said, why the change when there is no obvious need for one?

My question is who are the people sitting on the Advisory Board ?
What about President and Chief Justice ?
Both can be the key to oversee the ISA is not abused.

The tricky part is in the system of selection where it leaves the public no doubt both President and CJ will act without fear or favour to any political party.
So far have they ?

I have noticed quite a few posted comments here on how shocked some people are over the detention of people like Chia Thye Poh for 23 years. These people were probably not even born yet or still babies. ISA is a very cruel and heartless law, and it has been used by heartless, ruthless and cruel leaders such as those from PAP. TOC can bring justice to victims of history by educating and enlightening these younger generations by recalling pages from the past, fallen heroes, innocent civil activists etc.

Hi Kingrant,

TOC covered the 22nd Anniversary of the 1987 Marxist Conspiracy 2 weeks ago.

Hi Lee Chee Wai,

The reasoning behind Suggestion (2) may sound contradictory but it is actually the result of 2 opposing factors – national security concerns vs presumption to innocence. In my opinion, preventive detention should be used to pre-empt a violent aggression against the State, so the State should enjoy benefit of the doubt. However, it should not stop at detention because this move also buys time for them to build a case to charge the detainee in a criminal court. If there is no successful case, the detainee should be released without any charge.

Hi PoThePanda,

Taking account of the economic success of Singapore, I find it hard to accept Singapore as a soft authoritarian state. You cannot discount the fact that the standard of living in Singapore has improved leaps and bounds over the past 40 years and we have not been denied decent living by the PAP. If any, the PAP Government has shown itself to paternalistic and statist in its approach.

Modifying the GUN is not going to remove the possibility that a person develops a desire to KILL, does it? With all these suggestions implemented, the events of ‘87 would not have had happened? Come on.

I’m sorry but I find your suggestions curiously disconnected with the facts as TOC has presented them in the Marxist Conspiracy Feature.

Hi A&E,

The gun has nothing to do with the person developing the desire to kill. If the person has such a desire, he can still kill with a block of brick. If you are skeptical of the person developing the desire to kill, go vote him out.

The problem has and always been the person. You should also take note that the alleged Marxist Conspirators were prosecuted under the 1965 edition of the ISA while we are currently under the 2005 edition of the ISA which excludes indefinite detention.

Last but not least, TOC writers do not necessarily share the same opinion and they are free to contradict TOC editorial too. I am sure you also agree that group-think hampers the diversity of thoughts at TOC.

Hi Jerome #16,

Why the change when there is no obvious need for one? The change is obviously needed when there are fundamental flaws. It is the very same reason why we all have been harping on the unfairness of the GRC which also takes away our voting right in view of a walkover. The ISA is fundamentally flawed and until it has been rectified, we should continue to advocate for its reform.

Donaldson -

that Sg is not an authoritarian state because of its economic success is a logical fallacy. One can argue (and the PAP govt certainly argues so) that Sg’s economic success is precisely because of its authoritarian system.

paternalism by definition is aligned with authoritarianism, even if there are varying degrees within and between them.

What else do the PAP govt use to justify its severe cubs on free speech and civil liberties and liberal democracies – all anti-theses of ‘authoritarianism’ – but that of being better able to ensure economic success?

(and economic success that benefits whom, and to what extent… is real – is another inconclusive area)

#24 Tonny tk the words out of my mouth, Donaldson.

You were sleepy when you replied to PothPander? ))))

I am glad to know that there is actually an advisory board to look at what evidence ISD has against someone before detaining him. This is a safeguard, in my opinion, to prevent any abuse of the ISA.

For the stability of our beloved country, ISA must stay. The proposed reformation to the ISA is merely good to have. I do not think they will greatly improve the system.

Hi Donaldson,

I agree that the person is the problem. But the discussion is on the law, and what it means for the governed. Any discussion about the reform of the ISA, or the POA and the like, that focuses on the letter of the law, is ineffective if the objective is to prevent abuse because the party which is in a position to abuse these Acts are certainly going to be in a position to make laws or strongly influence law-making. Words are malleable. To wit:

Only ground for detention is a threat to the state? What if the party equates itself with the state and interprets the “reformed” ISA accordingly? Or that a gathering of one is to the detriment of public security?

Cap on detention duration – so instead of serving a 22 year detention, he serves 11 two-year ones? Maybe a cap to limit the number of times one can be charged under this Act, but we might then have to introduce new Acts to scoop up the repeat offenders. Of course, the new Sister Acts will have to have caps of detention duration as well…..

To disregard evidence extracted under duress, a court really needs to see the evidence first. Was evidence ever forthcoming? How does one go about proving torture, as distinct from “psychological pressure”.
——-

As a start, any reform must include a certain amount of burden of proof that the state will have to bear when using the ISA. The state does not have to provide immediate proof, but it should be required to do so eventually. That, and your call for objective reviews, must not be left to an appointed “panel”, but might be better served with a jury from outside the government – i.e. the population. The jury system was done away with in Singapore, but perhaps it could be brought back in limited form. It is our security and interests the ISA is supposed to serve, after all. Finally, provisions for some for of restitution might be in order, should the detainees prove to be absent malice.

These are the disconnects I see in your suggestions and the facts of the feature. They are factual and logical, not subjective opinion. The feature was not an opinion piece, was it? So no, I am not accusing you of groupthink and a divergence of opinion. You would agree it would have been quite a feat for anyone to draw an accusation of both, simultaneously, with one article.

I like this article. A different angle from the rampant “get rid of the ISA” myopia, and instead tells us to balance national security and freedom from arbitrary detention.

Why was Chia Tye Poh released after 23 years?
Why not 24?
How long after his release did he passed away?
Assuming there was concrete evidence, was he sentenced?
But 1st, was he given any trial?

Any developed country should not have ISA to use when they have already achieve much both socially and economically.

ISA is for countries that could not give people a fair trial and thus will appear dictatorial.

So far only two countries I believe still use ISA widely – Malaysia and Singapore.

aiyoyo

think back MAS case, still wonder how secure is it?

aiyoyo

Gilbert@30: Most countries including the USA, has got various apparatus of internal security. They just don’t call it the ‘Internal Security Act’. For example, the USA passed the Homeland Security Act in 2002 , which is a variant of the ISA. The USA has created other internal security apparatus besides the Department of Homeland Security, like the FBI, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, The US Marshals, The Transportation Security Administration, and The Drug Enforcement Administration.

Hi smallvice58 #23,

I fully recognise the need for reform and advocacy for changes concerning the ISA. However, my point is that there has been a distinct lack of large incidences (or even any) of abuse of this law in recent years. With much pressing issues on hand, I doubt the government will respond to calls for change. This is especially so with the ongoing war against terrorism and the law being used to detain terrorists. With the law being used to safeguard our security, I doubt the majority of Singaporeans will join in the cause.

We live in a democracy where the government is elected by the people. In a elected democracy, a trust is built between the elected government and the people. The beauty of democracy is such that if there are anything that we are unhappy about, we can show our dissatisfaction in the polls come Election Day. The majority of Singaporeans did vote the current government and I believe they do trust the government not to misuse the law for their own benefit.

Hi Jerome,

You said there is a distinct lack of incidence of abuses in recent times. The problem with ascertaining the abuse of ISA depends on how much you trust the Government.

The Government will not substantiate its view publicly why a particular application of the ISA is wholely justified. Transparency on national security issues will be at best opaque, if not, total media blackout.

If you don’t trust the Government at all, every application of the ISA will be viewed as abuse. Hence, the only ground needed for the call of its reform will be its inherent fundamental flaw. We should not give up on the call for its reform

Hi Jerome,

You said there is a distinct lack of incidence of abuses in recent times. The problem with ascertaining the abuse of ISA depends on how much you trust the Government.

The Government will not substantiate its view publicly why a particular application of the ISA is wholely justified. Transparency on national security issues will be at best opaque, if not, total media blackout.

If you don’t trust the Government at all, every application of the ISA will be viewed as abuse. Hence, the only ground needed for the call of its reform will be its inherent fundamental flaw. We should not give up on the call for its reform
Sorry… forgot to say great post – can’t wait to read your next one!

Hi A&E,

After reading your elaboration, I realised you made good points that I had missed. You could have put forward them earlier. TOC is a forum for all to share our concerns and thoughts on Singapore. This commentary thread here after all focuses on national security as a slippery slope. Your criticism is most appreciated.

But I must contend certain points. The ultimate checker on the abuse of laws, privileges and state power remains the People. I hope you are not pointing legal reform in that direction that absolves the People of this responsibility. If Singaporeans are not willing to make a stand against the ruling party which abuse its position as Government, Singaporeans can only blame themselves.

OB markers do not necessarily only apply to the People. OB markers are two-way social contract between the People and the Government. The People has to make known to the Government what the OB markers the Government should observe to. Such OB markers include the gross misconception that the ruling party is the state and that defamation suits between ruling party and opposition politicians are a no-no. The People has a big role to play in balancing and moderating issues of national concerns. Not everything can be and should be regulated by law.

The BOI is to inspect and ascertain torture and make known its concerns to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board functions as miniature-court with regards to deliberation on ISA detainee. Reforms are hardly smooth-sailing as a political or legislative process. If you cannot trust the supposedly independent BOI, you cannot trust anyone enforcing the ISA, isn’t it?

32) Ravi Philemon on June 3rd, 2009 11.56 am

But which country detain without any trial for 23 years or more?

What is the reason to detain someone for so long?

And is there a limit of time for detention?

So the next ruling party, if any, also get to exercise detain without trial lah?
Is that not scary power to have?

What mechanism inplace that truely can prevent Abuse of such power? Is it again from our elected and revered president? I not sure at all leh.

Here is more info on Chia : http://www.singapore-window.org/81130sc.htm

I think he still alive lah. Anyone got info on his status?

Actually, if nobody trusts all law enforcement agencies and the judiciary, all the laws already made in Singapore are meaningless. So where does mistrust should terminate in the process of law enforcement?

Thanks #37 for that link which says:

“Mr Chia spent 22 years, six months, two weeks and four days in jail, mostly in solitary confinement, until 1989 – becoming the world’s second longest serving prisoner-of-conscience after South Africa’s Nelson Mandela. The 9 1/2 years after his release were spent under severe restrictions.”

I am stunned. (o.O)

[...] Remember May 21st – TOC: Reform the Internal Security Act [...]

Winston Churchill once said that “The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”

He said that on 21 November 1943 and if that was not sanctimonious hypocrisy I don’t know what is, because barely five years later in 1948 it was the Brits who introduced the “emergency Powers” in Malaya to deal with the communist insurgency. That led to the legislation of the ISA in Malaysia and Singapore.

The call to reform the ISA is a call to reform the voting patterns of Singaporeans. Unless Singaporeans vote for for such reforms, everyone is at the mercy of the PAP.

The ISA is a colonial era law that has no place in modern Singapore.

Just because it has not been used against domestic political dissidents in the recent past is no guarantee it will never be used, now or by a future government.

“The appropriate yardstick to measure the fear factor of the ISA is not how wide the powers the ISA grants the government, but rather the ruling party’s attitude towards alternative voices.”

This is a highly subjective formulation for a critical law concerning the country’s security. How are we to calibrate, codify and circumscribe the “ruling party’s attitude” to ensure it doesn’t trample upon citizen’s rights?

The ISA needs to be scrapped altogether and replaced with an anti-terrorism law, with the criteria for terrorist activities clearly and unambiguously spelt out.

In any case, a six month detention period without trial is far too long. If a person has been detained as a suspected terrorist, surely evidence can be to produced, even if it is evidence of active links with known terrorist organizations. The maximum detention period a civilized society should be prepared to consider is 90 days, not more.
—–
The “liberalisation” of the right to assemble and protest at Speaker’s Corner is a pathetic apology for draconian restrictions on citizen’s rights to free expression. It is a sop and should be called a sop.

“Speakers’ Corner has indeed opened up more political space for the alternative voices in Civil Society and Politics.”

Has TOC turned into an apologist for the government?

Hi Peter Sellers,

This article is not a TOC editorial, so it does not reflect TOC’s position on the Internal Security Act. In fact, there is no uniform position on the ISA among TOC writers. Some want it abolished. Some want it reformed. Some have not given thought on it. TOC does not demand its writers to adhere to editorial direction on individual opinion pieces.

My main motivation for this opinion piece is to urge Singaporeans to move on and stop living in the shadow of the ISA. Malaysia has an equally draconian ISA which shares the same history as Singapore’s very own ISA. Despite rampant abuses of the ISA by UMNO, the ISA didn’t stop Malaysian opposition politics to grow. Yet after the 1987 Marxist Conspiracy, the growth of Opposition Politics in Singapore came to a standstill. How come Singaporeans respond so differently towards the ISA from Malaysians?

Whether is 6-months or 90 days, it is still an arbitrary number. It is based on my guesstimate on how likely it will take the Home Team to come up with substantiation for criminal charges in Court. I am sure we share similar position that it should be as short as possible. If you can convince me that the Home Team can do it faster, why not? My idealism is still bounded by pragmatic considerations.

Hi Donaldson,

Thank you for your response and reassurance. It was a rather thought-provoking article, esp. coming in the wake of the feature. Again, I agree with your statements – checks and balances should come from outside the government – but that’s just us.

I wonder that Ms Indranee Rajah does not suggest changes to the electoral system that provides to all alike the psychological reassurance that something stands between the people and the future possibility of a government gone bad.

To Mr Donaldson Tan,

I ran a search on the ISA within Singapore’s statues and came across Section 11. Section 11 codifies representations against detention order and specifically, the detainee’s statutory right for legal representation against the OD. What baffles me is the part about that section being not able to be applied if a direction under Section 8 (2) (extension of the detention period under orders of the President).

Does this mean that the detainee can be held indefinitely without trial or review by the Advisory Board if the President continually extends his detention order? if this is the case, is this even an effective safeguard against abuse?

Due to my limited ability in reading statutes, I seek your (or anybody’s) help in clarifying this particular portion of the ISA. I am sure many of TOC’s readers would like to know whether the Advisory Board actually have the opportunity to review detention orders under the ISA.

To smallvice585,

Thanks for the compliment! I agree with your point on the definition of abuse being intricately linked to transparency. Glad we could reach common ground on that. On a side note. maybe you would like to help me understand Section 11 of the ISA? (see above post #47)

Glad that so many of you are interested in the ISA. I hope that one day we will be able to know how many people were imprisoned and tortured under the Act. In the 50s and 60s, many of the prisoners were doctors, lawyers, politicians, journalists, trade union leaders, economists, teachers and students. They were the cream of our society and many were imprisoned without trial for more than a decade. What would Singapore be like today if they had not been imprisoned?

Hi Jerome,

The section which you highlighted means that the the President of Singapore cannot deny ISA detainees their statutory right to legal representation against the extension of their ODs unless he announced State of Emergency.

Given the President’s central role in the administration of the ISA, the ISA depends a lot on the President being non-partisan to prevent the ruling party from abusing the ISA against peaceful activists and Opposition politicians.

Hi Peter Sellers,

We can legally protest at Speakers’ Corner now. Like it or not, it is a sheer improvement over the complete outlawing of protests in Singapore. I admit it will never be deemed adequate for Western-style liberals, but it is surely a start.

I think you cannot consider such recognition for the liberalisation of Speakers’ Corner as a qualification of a PAP / Government Apologist unless the beholder also credits the Government for the merit. I don’t think Donaldson or TOC in general actually credits the Government for the liberalisation.

The right to voice up is a birthright.
I do not give credit to anyone for this.
It would be self-redicule if I were to do this.

teo soh lung@49: I wonder with you as well…but we should also go beyond the wondering to try and shape the Singapore we want whatever the outcome may be…perhaps then the next generation could wonder better….

47) Jerome on June 3rd, 2009 11.31 pm

//I seek your (or anybody’s) help in clarifying this particular portion of the ISA.//

50) Donaldson Tan made an excellent and succinct attempt to clarify the issue but IMHO there must be one other condition for the “suspect” to be denied representation.

This is my interpretation of Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 11.

Section 8 (1) of the ISA says that “If the President is satisfied with respect to any person that, with a view to preventing that person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Singapore or any part thereof or to the maintenance of public order or essential services therein, it is necessary to do so, the Minister shall make an order —

(a) directing that such person be detained for any period not exceeding two years;

And section 8 (2) says that “The President may direct that the period of any order made under subsection (1) be extended for a further period or periods not exceeding two years at a time.”

This means that the “suspect” can be detained for 2 years max only by the Minister under Section 8(1) but the “suspect” can be further detained for another 2 years as directed by an order from the President under Section 8(2) and thereafter for further “periods not exceeding two years at a time” as directed by an order from the President in Section 8(2).

Section 11 (1) say that “A copy of every order made by the Minister under section 8 (1) (a) shall as soon as possible after the making thereof be served on the person to whom it relates, and every such person shall be entitled to make representations against the order to an advisory board.

*While the Emergency (Internal Security and Detention Orders) Regulations 1964 (L.N. 335/64) are in force, this section does not apply in the case of any person in respect of whom a direction has been given under section 8 (2) of this Act extending the period of an order made under section 8 (1) in respect of that person.”

So when an Emergency is in force, any person ordered under detention under Section 8(1) CANNOT make representation against the order to the Advisory Board, if the President has already extended his detention for a further 2 years under Section 8(2).

//Does this mean that the detainee can be held indefinitely without trial or review by the Advisory Board if the President continually extends his detention order?//

Two conditions must be present for the “suspect” to be deprived of his rights to make representation to the Advisory Board .

Firstly an Emergency must be in force and secondly the President has directed that his detention be increased for a further 2 years under Section 8(2).

Thank you Donaldson and Curious for your kind assistance in helping me understand the issues surrounding legal representation for ISA detainees. As Donaldson said, the President seems to be in a pivotal position of veto in the ISA. With the Elected Presidency, Legislature and the Judiciary working as tripartite powers to ensure checks and balances on one another, much responsibility is placed on him to keep the elected government in check. I wonder if this complex system of self regulation within the powers have any loopholes or is it as watertight and fool-proof as it seems.

The president acts on the advice of the cabinet or minister in most cases (Art 21 of the Constitution).

Under the ISA, imprisonment is indefinite. The order whether it be 1 month, 6 months or 2 years can be renewed indefinitely.

Nothing is Carved in Stone especially rule-based systematics. <– can anyone not understand this simple concept?

The people have to take up the responsibility and choose what they want.

Curious,

It’s worth noting that Churchill and his party were out of office in 1948, having been defeated in the 1945 elections.

(Having said that, it does appear that Churchill felt it was reasonable for governments to assume emergency powers in times of crisis. He’s quoted as having said “Parliament stands custodian of these surrendered liberties, and its most sacred duty will be to restore them in their fullness when victory has crowned our exertions and our perseverance,” regarding the British government’s WWII-era emergency powers.)

despite the potential for abuse ISD should not be disbanded, maybe they should be granted a flexible amount of powers during peaceful & troubled times. just as no hotel would have heightened surity throughtout the year just because it annually hosts high profile meetings for a short period of time?

58) Random Person on June 4th, 2009 3.30 pm

//Curious, It’s worth noting that Churchill and his party were out of office in 1948, having been defeated in the 1945 elections.//

That’s true. But lets not forget that the olde bulldog was re-elected prime minister again from 1951 to 1955 well before the then Malayans declared “Merdeka” on 31 Aug 1957. He could have abolished the “emergency powers”.

When Churchill urged his people in his 1940 famous war speech “we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender” for the sake of freedom, that freedom was not meant for the colonies.

If Churchill had his ways, he would have never wanted the sun to set in the British Empire (read colonies).

It was Roosevelt who insisted that Britain dismantled the colonies if it wanted America’s help with Lend-Lease (supply of vast amount of war materials) and troops during the 2nd world war, without both of which the MPs in the House of Commons today would be conducting parliamentary business in German. :)

[...] 4, 2009 at 6:52 pm (Let’s Not be Naive) Reform the Internal Security Act in The Online Citizen is a good read. The argument on the need to have exceptional laws in [...]

You can say all you want, we, the PAP are always a step ahead. We can now throw dissidents into IMH, hahahaha! No need justification, no need trial, no need to waste time, no need to answer anything, we can do it anytime and to anyone who dare oppose us. ISA is outdated. Tell your sons & daughters, mums & dads not to ask for trouble, be a good citizen, concentrate on keeping us talents up there and upkeeping our high living.

62) A Step Ahead on June 4th, 2009 8.17 pm

Looks like you need professional help now.

The only sure way to prevent the Government from abusing the ISA and trampling civil rights is to contain PAP hegemony.

For this, the People must put their act together via the ballot box and repeated engagement to highlight the OB markers the Government must observe too.

In fact, this not only extends to the ISA but all laws in Singapore. If one cannot trust the government, the judiciary or any of the law enforcement agencies, then all our laws are meaningless.

I suppose Teo Soh Lung (#56) do not share the same definition of “indefinite” as the author. She advocates for the quantitative restriction on ISA detention while Donaldson has emphasised the qualitative restriction on ISA detention in this article and the commentary thread.

The Malaysian Chinese Association also shares similar position on the ISA:

MCA: expedite judicial reforms, review ISA, revamp economic policies

KUALA LUMPUR: The Government has been urged to expedite judicial reform and set up an independent Judicial Commission to restore the confidence of the people in the system.

The MCA 55th annual general assembly unanimously passed the resolution to urge the Government to review the Internal Security Act and establish a check and balance system to ensure that it strictly applies to terrorism and cases with subversive elements.

Donaldson,

Contrary to what you say at # 45, TOC editors displayed remarkable moral courage, independence, integrity and guts over the past few weeks, both on the subject of the 1987 “Marxist Conspiracy” (which reflects their views on the ISA) and the President’s speech and related developments in Parliament.

On the other hand, at # 20 you appear to be promoting the soporific view that the government has been force -feeding the population for years.:

“Taking account of the economic success of Singapore, I find it hard to accept Singapore as a soft authoritarian state. You cannot discount the fact that the standard of living in Singapore has improved leaps and bounds over the past 40 years and we have not been denied decent living by the PAP.”

Are you suggesting that in exchange for material progress, we should be prepared to forever trade-in our personal freedom? Be careful, for you never know when the beast will turn around and bite the hand that is feeding it.

Idealism is good and to be admired, provided we are clear sighted. TOC editors have set high standards and shown the way. Let us not let them down by compromising our standards or expectations.

Hi Peter Sellers,

In the first place, I am not a Western-style liberal. The economic argument will never make sense to Western-style liberal but it bodes well within the Confucian framework of governance. Let me share with you some wisdom from the Confucian Analects:

子贡问政。子曰：“足食，足兵，民信之矣。”
子贡曰：“必不得已而去，于斯三者何先？”曰：“去兵。”知
子贡曰：“必不得已而去，于斯二者何先？”曰：“去食。自古皆有死，民无信不立。”

《颜渊篇》第十二

Hi Peter Sellers,

In case you think that I sound like an apologist of LKY’s Asian Values, I state my opinion that LKY reconstructed Asian Values by fusing Confucian values with Utilitarianism and this has unfairly misconstrued Confucian values as Authoritarian.

Confucius has always advocated for propriety from the Government towards the People – a fact that PAP and LKY have conveniently omitted. In fact, Sun Yet-sen’s modernist revision of Confucian values in the form of the Three People’s Principle introduced democracy as a mean to reinforce the need for propriety from the Government to the People.

Democracy is the best thing that has happened in the practise of Confucian governance principles.

Hi Donaldson at # 67,

Please translate, for the benefit of those who don’t read Mandarin!

Thank you

Hi Ravi, you keep asking for a committee to be set up to review and limit the powers of the ISA.

Have you noticed that with the creation of “laws” under the POA (Public Order Act), it only shows that they will tighten, not loosen up on systems that can be used against political opponents?

Good luck with that committee, maybe it will come to exist only when the PAP themselves are detained under the ISA.

70) Ys on June 6th, 2009 4.40 pm

This committee is already existent (the Advisory Board). He merely called for additional powers to be vested on this committee to give it a more central role in the issuance of ODs.

Oh alright Jerome, I thought he meant an actual independent committee.

Then let me rephrase myself: Good luck with the Advisory Board.

Hi Peter Sellers,

I think I rather write another TOC piece dedicated to the topic of Confucian Governance since we both can guess how this discussion thread will pan out. This reminds me of my secondary school days studying Chinese Literature.

Hi Ys and Jerome,

Ys is right that Ravi wants to have an independent committee to study proposals for ISA reform and to investigate if there were any past abuses of the ISA. That is the only way to restore the legitimacy of the ISA in the eyes of the People.

7/6/09

Hi Donaldson Tan

Read your article on Internal Security Act-ISA and as far as I am concerned ie being an Ordinary Singaporean, my stand is our Internal Security Act-ISA is still very relevant today especially now the whole world is being very seriously threatened by Muslim Extremisim-Terrorisim and Singapore’s peace and security have been affected and recently we saw how the smarted Muslim extremist Mas Selamat outwitted our Singapore Police force and successfully escaped to Johor and was caught by the Malaysia Police and currently being held under the Malaysia’s Internal Security Act-ISA which had been abused by their government of the day ie the BN-UMNO led government who has been using Internal Security Act-ISA on its political opponents, unlike in Singapore where you have rightly pointed out, our Singapore Government has not used the Internal Security Act-ISA on Dr Chee and his bunch of Running Dogs in SDP (they have betrayed both the nation and fellow Singaporeans by being Running Dogs of those Foreign NGOs).

Perhaps, time for a review of our Internal Security Act-ISA ie only focuing on both domestic and international terrorisim, and only being used on our local politicians should they be caught involving themselves with these domestic and international terrorisim, and no mercies must be shown to them

Regards
Andrew Chuah

Donaldson.

I think that’s a good idea. Look forward to seeing your new effort!

The ISA is here to stay. Important thing for us is to elect a responsible Government and Parliament.

Don’t ever think that Singapore will survive forever. A prolonged recession can lead to a lot of disaffection and people can be worked up Tiananmen style. A major incident like Bali or Mumbai Bombing (not to mention 9/11) can destroy us economically.

Internal security cases are very different from ordinary criminal cases, in the following ways.

1. To charge and convict the detainee is NOT the primary goal. We want to destroy the entire, say terrorist, network.

2. Security threat is not an one-time event. It is a process that involves an ideology, vision, conception of actionable political goals, planning, and action to overthrow or do damage a regime.

It is relatively easy to gather evidence when a security threat has reached the planning and action stage. But it is not easy to gather evidence to criminalize an ideology (such as a pan-Islamic or pan-Buddhist Empire or Communism or Separatism or the idea to build a “pure” Singapore Chinese state).

The political goals may look innocent – such as the “freedom” not only to discuss but also to recruit like-minded members, organize activities, receive funding, build an underground or above-ground network of activist cells, etc. The intention to overthrow and to subvert a nation or its regime may never be declared by the masterminds who work behind the scene, such that cell members themselves might not even know about it. Even if you arrest the cell members, you may not get any “hard” evidence. But you might have loads of “soft” evidence against them, such their writings, reading materials, photographs (say of Osama bin Laden or Dalai Lama), their visits and stays in various places (say Afghanistan or Dharamsala).

But you need to detain these people to uncover the entire network – who else are involved, who are the leaders, who are the real behind-the-scene foreign or local masterminds, if any. The possibility that a detainee might be detained indefinitely will spur him to reveal information that will implicate others. If they know they will be detained only for six months or one year at the maximum, then there is little incentive for them to volunteer information. (Note that the price tag for Osama is US$25 million).

Internal Security are life and death matters. We do not have to follow the good advice of those very secured, developed and advanced nations. When their nations are under great threat, they will do things the same way. Like the Guantanamo prison. And when threat has diminished, they say they will close down Guantanamo.

Hi MatthewTan,

You forgot to include Christian Nationalism.

Post # 76

These are arguments that have been used throughout history by fascist regimes bent on preserving their own power.

Examples of this type of control are Germany in the 1930s, Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China. There are many other examples from contemporary history.

Mr Tan, where is the safeguard against the ISA being misused, not against genuine terrorists but (peaceful) domestic political opponents. Operation Spectrum is a real example of such misuse of power. Please answer.

That is why the ISA must be reformed, such that only genuine threats (ie by those that plan to subvert the state by force) are contained. The Terrorism Act 2006 in the UK (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006) is an example of an act with sufficient safeguards built in to protect the innocent.

Besides, your statement “ A prolonged recession can lead to a lot of disaffection ….” as a justification for continued use of the ISA in its present form opens up a whole new avenue for discussion. Are you suggesting that the ISA should be used against a (peaceful) population for voicing genuine grievances against the government?? This is an alarming statement. It is precisely the reason the ISA needs reform.

smallvice585: “You forgot to include Christian Nationalism.”

Me: Actually, it is not likely for some kinds of religious “nationalism” to happen here. And Chrisitian nationalism is one. We don’t have “Christian” countries around.

Peter Sellers: “fascist regimes bent on preserving their own power. ”

Me: We need PAP in power for a long time to come. PAP has no need to preserve their power.

Peter Sellers: “Mr Tan, where is the safeguard against the ISA being misused,”

Me: My article is not about “safeguard”. Go ahead and reform if you need it.

Peter Sellers: “Operation Spectrum is a real example of such misuse of power”

Me: Then correct the abuse of power. Any piece of law can be abused. With the resources of the government, I can set you up and charge you under any law I choose, and if I am clever enough, I can easily get you convicted.

Peter Sellers:”That is why the ISA must be reformed”

Me: I did not say yes or no to this. I only said ISA is here to stay.

Peter Sellers: “(peaceful) population for voicing genuine grievances against the government??

Me: This is not my topic. I am on national security. Economic disaffection can be exploited by dark forces which leads to “peaceful protests” which then ended up in violence. That are so many examples. It is happening today in Xinjiang.

My point is that it is not wise to have the detainee know for sure that he will be set free within a certain time frame.

I remember Chiang See Dong bringing up the issue of abolishing the ISA in his GE rally in his early days. For a long time, I don’t hear him saying this any more. I believe Singaporeans want a strong and effective government and generally support the ISA. That’s why I say ISA is here to stay. Singapore is too vulnerable and fragile. We need strong laws and strong government.

I don’t visit this website often. So, I will not return to argue further. I just want to make a point and show my support for the ISA. And this second post of mine is to clarify some points you have raised.

Christian Nationalism is a real threat that has to be countered with Civic Nationalism. It is time to roast the Religious Lobby in Singapore for good.

I like to add a few things, because people here have mentioned and there are articles on this website on the “Marxist Conspiracy” of 1987 that involved the Catholic Church.

I am not here to argue whether the Government has abused the ISA or not in 1987, or whether the detainees were innocent or not. I simply do not know.

But I like younger Singaporeans to know that the threat of Marxist activism, if not communist insurgency, was very real, even up to the 1980s. And Marxism led to communism. And how could we be sure that Marxist activism would not have led to communist insurgency of some sorts? And it was a good thing to have a very vigilant Government.

I was a member of an organization that appeared to be an innocent student activity group that studied and discussed philosophy (in Chinese), and things like exploitation of the capitalists on the working class. All along I knew the philosophy that was being discussed had something to do with Marxism – although the terms “Marxism” and “communism” and “Karl Marx” was never mentioned. (If they were, the (Chinese) books would have been banned in those days). I joined the group to make friends and to brush up my Chinese, and I did not feel anything wrong or dangerous joining them. One day, there was an industrial accident called the “Spyros Disaster” that killed up nearly 80 people, and the group leader began to lead the discussion in the direction to blame the Government for it. I became very wary of this organisation, and I quit.

I am not saying that this organisation had a vicious and ulterior motive. I am just saying that it could be and very likely, because I could not fathom how this industrial accident could be linked with Government irresponsibility.

This was how communist cells and terrorist cells worked. Through your innocent participation, they would begin to identify possible recruits. And they would use certain events to instigate hate towards the Government, or the socio-political system, or certain racial and religious group. And except for the top leaders, people like people would never know who the behind-the-scene mastermind was,

That’s all I want to say.
(Read wikipedia for information about “Spyros Disaster”.)

Smallvice585 at #80:

Agree. It is a disease (religious fundamentalism of all kinds) that needs to be stamped out of the public policy space.

Unfortunately, our government seems to have no idea of the direction to take and continues to send out mixed signals in its desire to appease the “conservative majority” (a myth, in my opinion).

In the 1970s, the government forced through an abortion policy because of the perceived need to manage population growth. Today it has a toothless section 377A on the statute books (the government has acknowledged it will not be used but seems unable to repeal it). I doubt the present government would have the moral fibre to pass an abortion law today. The religious lobby is a real problem.

Hi Matthew Tan #81,

The Church also operates in the same way. Christian Nationalism has to be monitored closely. Christian Nationalists borrows Church resources to amplify its messages because there are many closet sympathisers among the clergymen.

[...] a view from one of those other places, see here and here. In fact, ISAs like those in Thailand, which hand over considerable control to the armed [...]