By Donaldson Tan / Head, TOC International / London
The ISA still serves an important function in ensuring Singapore’s security, despite the potential for abuse by the government. The author suggests four reforms that will help guarantee that human rights are respected even in the face of detention.
Professor Hugh Hickling, the original author of the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the former Commissioner of Law Revision of Malaysia, once remarked: “I could not imagine then that the time would come when the power of detention…. would be used against political opponents, welfare workers and others dedicated to non-violent, peaceful activities.”
Spoken in the aftermath of the Marxist Conspiracy, it was a sad reminder for idealism and politics in Singapore.
(Photo: A silent protest in Malaysia against the ISA. In Singapore, such protests are rarer, but the spectre of the ISA remains. Courtesy of Rescuedog / Creative Commons)
No More than a Legacy
Twenty-two years have lapsed since the ISA was used against peaceful activists. The legacy of fear still remains, perhaps unnecessarily so as even Singapore’s most vocal opposition member Dr Chee Soon Juan has not been persecuted under the ISA.
Judging from the rampant abuse of the ISA across the causeway, it is actually quite telling that the abuse is a symptom of the ruling party’s intolerance towards alternative voices.
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.
While the public remains skeptical whether the NMP and NCMP schemes boost political space for alternative voices, the liberalisation of Speaker’s Corner is by far the best indicator of the PAP’s evolving attitude towards alternative voices. Various interest groups have staged demonstrations at Speaker’s Corner – from Anti-War Activists to Gay-supportive groups.
The National Solidarity Party publicly expressed its disagreement on the Government’s Budget in January 2009 at Speaker’s Corner while Ng Teck Siong held a press conference there on his resignation as Chairman of Reform Party in April 2009.
Speakers’ Corner has indeed opened up more political space for the alternative voices in Civil Society and Politics.
The Merits of the Internal Security Act
The original intent of the ISA was to provide for the internal security of Singapore through the prevention of subversion and the suppression of organised violence against persons and property in specified areas of Singapore.
In 2002, Vanu Gopala Menon, Singapore’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, stressed to the international community that the ISA is a critical instrument of last resort to counter security threats such as racial and religious extremism, espionage, terrorism and subversion.
In more recent years, the ISA has been used to neutralise the activities of terrorist or terrorist-linked organisations in Singapore, including the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), which had planned to bomb several foreign embassies and major installations in Singapore.
The clause for indefinite detention was removed in 2002.
According to the latest (2005) edition of the ISA, no person may be detained for more than two years at a time. Each detainee has a right to make representations against his Order of Detention (OD) to the ISA Advisory Board, comprising a Supreme Court judge and two prominent citizens appointed by the President of Singapore.
The detainee is free to engage a lawyer for this purpose.
In hearing detainees’ representations, the Advisory Board can examine Internal Security Department (ISD) officers and statements of witnesses and review the investigation. It considers representation from detainees within 3 months of the date of the OD and subsequently makes recommendations to the President for consideration.
The Advisory Board is further required to undertake a yearly review of continued detention against a person and make further recommendations to the Minister for Home Affairs.
There are also other safeguards in place to prevent any physical assault of detainees. A doctor is present to examine the detainee before and after each interview session. All examinations are recorded on the detainee’s medical card and the doctor makes a daily entry of any complaint by the detainee. Where a doctor has reported the discovery of any injury to the prison authority, such cases would be investigated.
In addition, there are provisions under the ISA for a Board of Inspection (BOI) to be appointed. This Board comprises Justices of Peace and volunteers of community and civic groups. They make unscheduled visits to the detention centre and are entitled to inspect the place and speak to the detainees.
Detainees are able to convey requests and complaints to these Board members who will channel them and any other recommendations to the Government. The 56 Board members include representatives of all major ethnic and religious communities in Singapore.
Reform the Internal Security Act
The build-in checks and balances in the ISA are still inadequate to address the rights and justice of the suspects and detainees as afforded by the Singapore Constitution. Although it has been claimed that the very nature of clandestine activities would make disclosure of intelligence a threat to national security, this is still no reason to violate the legal right to the presumption of innocence.
After all, nobody is above the law, including terrorists and cabinet ministers.
The satisfaction of the President, a precondition for detention, is a purely subjective condition to exclude a judicial enquiry. Moreover, an affidavit by the Minister of Home Affairs is deemed as sufficient evidence of Presidential satisfaction.
Worst of all, the Supreme Court cannot inquire into the bona fides of the President, which begs the question whether there is separation of powers in Singapore to allow the Judiciary to inspect the Executive branch.
In view of the above, I suggest the following reforms:
1) Objective review and inspection of evidence by the Advisory Board should be the deciding factor for the issuance of OD.
The only ground for detention is to prevent a person from carrying out a threat against the State. The authorities should use preventive detention to buy time for building a case to charge him in a criminal court.
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.
If the ISD is unable to build a court case against the detainee within the cap of the detention period, then the legitimacy of post-detention bond becomes questionable. 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.
3) The power to impose restrictive bond on the movement of former detainees over indefinite periods should be abolished.
Instead, a rehabilitation program that involves regular meet-up with a counsellor and case officer should be implemented.
4) Evidence obtained under torture (including prolonged interrogation) cannot and should not stand up to the scrutiny of the Advisory Board.
By rejecting such evidence, the incentive for ISD officers to torture detainees is minimised. Torture cannot be justified on grounds of human rights and integrity of evidence.
Not all torture will have a physical mark, so it is essential that the communication between the doctor, the BOI and the detainee have to be kept confidential from the ISD unless the Advisory Board deems otherwise.
Former Solicitor-General Francis Seow acted as the legal counsel for the alleged Marxist Conspirators. Despite being a public prosecutor, he was not spared from harassment by the ISD and was subsequently detained for 72 days. Such harassment prevents ISA detainees from obtaining impartial advice on their position.
The ISD should be barred from pressuring the detainee to lie to his legal counsel, the BOI, the doctor and the Advisory Board. While the ISA provides for special privilege for BOI members, the same privilege should be extended to the detainee’s doctor and legal counsel to protect them from ISD interference while discharging their professional capacity.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
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)
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.