From ‘Candidates clash on role of ISA’, 20 Aug 2011, article by Teo Xuanwei, Today
When Operation Spectrum was launched in 1987, one was the Education Minister while the other was Principal Private Secretary to then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.
At a forum on Thursday organised by The Online Citizen, the episode – which saw 22 alleged Marxist conspirators detained under the Internal Securty Act (ISA) – sparked a terse exchange between former Cabinet Minister Tony Tan and former senior civil servant Tan Jee Say, after the four presidential candidates were asked what each of them thought of the detention.
Dr Tony Tan said the case was “discussed very carefully” by the Cabinet but he could not disclose what was said as the discussions were covered under the Official Secrets Act. He added that the ISA was a “very blunt instrument” that should only be used in “the most extreme circumstances”, such as terror threats.
When it came to Mr Tan Jee Say’s turn to respond, he said the ISA had “outlived its usefulness”. He added: “I don’t even know whether (the ISA) was justified in the first place because the ISA has been used on political opponents.” Dr Tony Tan interjected: “To be fair … this is a very serious charge. You must be able to back it up.”
To which Mr Tan Jee Say responded: “Well, the people who have been detained had opposed the Government, that’s what I’m saying.” Referring to Dr Tony Tan, Mr Tan Jee Say added that he had been “attacked on (his) understanding of the English language”.
Mr Tan Kin Lian said that all he knew about the episode was what was covered in the media. Both he and Mr Tan Jee Say also proposed that a committee of inquiry be convened to review the detention. Dr Tan Cheng Bock, who was heading the Government’s Feedback Unit at that time, said that based on the information he had then, he agreed with the Government’s position. He added that he would only give his views if new evidence was available to him.
The ISA was borne out of the 1948 Emergency Regulations in June 1948 in response to the communist threat. It was later renamed the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in 1955, before settling on its current incarnation since 1963, a vague euphemism of the true workings of this document. If our new President can’t do anything to amend the act, which is likely the case, at least he could offer a suggestion to change its title from the ‘Internal Security Act’ (Aren’t all our policemen performing ‘internal security’?) to something that better reflects its purpose so that citizens will appreciate it better, such as KENA (Known evidence none, Arrest!)
Here’s a sampling of people being detained by the ISD without evidence, based on little more than suspicion and fear, where the definition of a ‘political opponent’ becomes fuzzy, and it remains debatable if these detentions were made on the basis of ‘the most extreme circumstances’.
Feb 1963: 113 detained from Operation Cold Store. Even people from seemingly harmless associations like the Spinning Worker’s Union weren’t spared.
Oct 1966: Chia Thye Poh arrested on suspicion of being in cahoots with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). Exiled to Sentosa, now a Las Vegas wannabe and rich tourist playground.
Jan 1982: 10 members of the Singapore People’s Liberation Organisation, a ‘Muslim extremist organisation’ with the intent of ‘overthrowing the government through communal arrest and sabotage’.
May 1987: 16 people charged in Operation Spectrum for being part of a ‘clandestine Communist network’, including lawyer Teo Soh Lung.
Sept 2002: 18 JI members detained for terrorist-related activities.
In a 2000 response to the use of the term ‘political prisoner‘ on Chia Thye Poh, The Ministry of Home Affairs responded that ‘the ISA has been used SPARINGLY the years as a measure of LAST RESORT against persons who pose a threat to NATIONAL SECURITY, and has NEVER been used to detain a person engaging in ‘constitutional’ political activities, but those who engage in unlawful acts against public order and in SUBVERSIVE activities. Detaining people and subjecting them to psychological torture methods like dousing cold water amid freezing aircon temperatures, before you even verify if they are guilty or innocent doesn’t sound like a last resort to me, but rather an ancient technique to manufacture a confession out of possibly innocent victims to justify the initial arrest, i.e witch-hunt protocol.
By the careful use of ambiguity in phrases like ‘national security’ and ‘subversion’, you can oppose the government provided you don’t step out of line, incite riots or ‘subvert’ your fellow Singaporeans. But once you start raising suspicions and get an unexpected invitation to have a chat with ISD officers, you are labelled a menace to national security, or worse, a terrorist, before even starting to paint your banners or light your protest march torches. Goh Chok Tong himself once revealed that the decision to scrape this draconian inquisition would depend on ‘voters’, which implies that Singaporeans have the power to decide on the relevance of the ISA. I have my doubts about this, but the spectre of voters acting on behalf of human rights activists, who have been fighting against this archaic law for the longest time, has been revived again this presidential election. This was what Goh said on the ISA issue being a hot election topic (ISA issue: Voters must decide, says Chok Tong, 30 April 1988, ST):
If we detained people without trial and locked them up for no reason for years and years and people disappear and are accounted for, the Government will fall very quickly in the general election.
The second part of his statement doesn’t make sense. A paranoid government would do away with elections altogether, if not ensure results are always in their favour by detaining people who may actually vote against them.
Tan Cheng Bock had little to contribute throughout the whole discussion, though he was more vocal in his support of the Marxist coup as a PAP backbencher and Feedback Unit head back in 1987 (Most think Govt acted rightly, says Cheng Bock, 30 July 1987, ST). But back to TT’s description of the ISA as a blunt instrument. It’s strange that the word ‘blunt’ was used to describe a system run by a unit consisting of professionals and President Scholars claiming to be able to arrest ‘genuine subversives’. Professionals! I always thought the ISD were a legion of death-eaters and Ring wraiths on black stallions.
Middle Earth ISD
Perhaps TT was thinking of a hammer in relation to the accusations of the ‘Marxists’ ‘infiltrating’ the Workers’ Party as a cover for their ‘clandestine activities’. Anyone familiar with the trauma of being hit by objects would agree that you may wield a blunt instrument, but if you apply it with sufficient force, it’ll destroy you as would the sharpest samurai sword, except that it’s just a more horrible way to die. Though it’s reasonable that some breach of human rights should be necessary to deter would-be murderous extremists from blowing up this country, applying broad strokes on ordinary , outspoken citizens who have never fired a weapon in their life, instead of exercising restraint and thoughtful precision, is a case of setting fire to a house the moment the floor starts to creak.
Filed under: 1960s, 1980s, 2000s, 2011, Bureaucrats, Campaigns/Elections, Justice system/Lawsuits, Politicians, Violence Tagged: | Campaigns/Elections, isa, isd, Politicians, SM Goh Chok Tong, tan cheng bock, tan see jay, tony tan, Violence
