Shanmugam: Singapore ISA subjected to “checks and balances”
October 29th, 2009 | 
Author: From our Correspondent
In a speech to a meeting of the New York State Bar Association’s International Section, Singapore Law Minister K Shanmugam took pains to explain to the visiting American delegates that “the Government’s power to detain an individual without a trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA) is subject to important checks and balances.”
Mr Shanmugam said that a detainee has the right to make representations to an Advisory Board, which must be considered, and is free to engage a lawyer of his choice for this.
The Advisory Board aside, members of a Board of Inspection, comprising Justices of the Peace and community leaders, can make unscheduled visits to the ISA detention facility and meet detainees.
By law, the Inspection Board must make an inspection at least once a month. Members can speak to detainees and report their complaints and concerns. Doctors examine detainees regularly, although detainees may ask to see a doctor at any time. Any injuries sustained by the detainees must be reported.
The Internal Security Act was enacted by the British in the 1950s to deal with the threat of a protracted communist insurgency. However, the Singapore government had decided to keep the Act even after the Emergency officially ended in 1960.
The Act was used to detain over 100 suspected communist members and sympathizers under “Operation Coldstore” in 1962, one of whom was Lim Chin Siong, a charismatic leader of the opposition Barisan Sosialist. He was so popular among the Chinese in Singapore that he was once considered as the future Prime Minister of Singapore.
Among those arrested under Operation Coldstore was a Barisan Sosialist MP Chia Thye Poh, who was incarcerated without trial for 32 years, the longest-serving political detainee in the world. PAP founder Dr Lim Hock Siew was detained for 19 years followed by Said Zahari with 17 years.
The next major wave of detention which shocked the free world took place in 1987 under “Operation Spectrum” which saw 22 young social activists and professionals being detained without trial for being members of a “Marxist conspiracy” bent on subverting the PAP-ruled government by force, and replacing it with a “Marxist” state.
This occurred during a time when the Malayan Communist Party had signed a peace treaty with the Malaysian government and 2 years before the disintegration of the communist bloc and subsequently the Soviet Union itself.
One of the detainees’ lawyer was former Solicitor-General Francis Seow, who was himself arrested and detained by the ISD upon arrival at the detention center. He was not released for more than two months. Francis Seow subsequently wrote a chilling account of his mistreatment during detention in his book “To catch a Tartar: a Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew’s prison”.
Seow’s account was not disputed by the Singapore government. Neither was he sued for defamation.
Most of the detainees were released in stages in late 1988 and throughout 1989, after signing statutory declarations recanting earlier allegations.
Teo Soh Lung, who had chosen to take her case to court, was held until 1990. Vincent Cheng was the last of the “Marxist conspirators” to be released, shortly after Teo.
On 18 April 1988, nine ex-detainees of Operation Spectrum released a statement saying that even though they had kept a “rueful and fearful silence” on the “unjust treatment,” they decided to make the statement now because of “the constant barrage of Government taunts and its public invitation to speak the truth”.
The statement alleged torture during their detention.
Excerpt as follows -
“…we were subjected to harsh and intensive interrogation, deprived of sleep and rest, some of us for as long as 70 hours insides freezing cold rooms. All of us were stripped of our personal clothing, including spectacles, footwear and underwear and made to change into prisoners’ uniforms.
Most of us were made to stand continually during interrogation, some of us for over 20 hours and under the full blast of air-conditioning turned to a very low temperature.
Under these conditions, one of us was repeatedly doused with cold water during interrogation.
Most of us were hit hard in the face, some of us for not less than 50 times, while others were assaulted on other parts of the body, during the first three days of interrogation.
We were threatened with more physical abuse during interrogation.”
[Source: Wikipedia]
Even until recently, the case of the alleged Marxist conspirators remains a puzzle. The detainees themselves did not fit the stereotype of the “agitators” whose activities were so troublesome to the PAP in the 1950s and 1960s.
The case was so controversial that it fail to convince some ministers and leading lawyers in the Singapore legal service.
Attorney-General Walter Woon:
“As far as I am concerned, the Government’s case is still not proven. I would not say those fellows were Red, not from the stuff they presented…I think a lot of people have this scepticism.” (Straits Times, 6 July 1991)
Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam:
“Although I had no access to state intelligence, from what I knew of them, most were social activists but not out to subvert the system.” (Straits Times, 2001)
It was revealed recently in the PAP propagandist book “Men in White” that former National Development minister S Dhanabalan had left the cabinet in the 1991 due to disagreement with how the government had handled Operation Spectrum.
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong:
“At that time, given the information, he (Dhanabalan) was not fully comfortable with the action we took….His makeup is that of a very strong Christian so he felt uncomfortable and thought they could be more of such episodes in future. So he thought since he was uncomfortable, he’d better leave the cabinet.” (“Men in White”, page 468)
Unless Mr Shanmugam can release classified information about Operation Spectrum to lend support to his words and to debunk the allegations directed at the ISA by the ex-detainees, it will be an uphill task for him to convince Singaporeans as well as foreigners that “ISA is subjected to checks and balance”.
Posted in Editorial
So SCARY….
Now I know I must vote for PAP.. again..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it is good to have checks and balances.
tis can help to sieve the true grouses from yher “stirrers”;
true SINAGPOREANS with honest feedbacks from the “IMPOSTERS”!
so “no worries” if you are genuine!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I also must vote PAP. There’s a chill in my spine….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
K Shanmugam: Singapore ISA subjected to “checks and balances”
Nelson Mandela was incarcerated for 26 years. He was sentenced, after trial, on charges of trying to overthrow the South African Government.
Chia Thye Poh was incarcerated without trial for 32 years. He was ’suspected’ of being a pro-communist.
South Africa was an apartheid country during Mandela’s arrest and incarceration.
Singapore a so-called Democratic country during Chia Thye Poh’s arrest and incarceration.
WHo will believe you, Shanmugam ??
Yeah… the PAP supporters and bootlickers.
As for the gathering of lawyer members of New York State Bar Association’s International Section and most other Singaporeans you are a silly joke, Sir.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Metaphorically speaking, I hope “subjected to checks and balances” does NOT mean writing cheques and altering bank statement balances” afterwards to make all evils concealed look daintily pretty and deliciously good
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The only check and balances that our ISA can be subjected to is international’s moderators and local opposition political parties’ moderators.
I am doubtful if ISA is non partisan in the very first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Lee and the PAP like to boost they have integrity. How come they don’t mention these great deeds in the history text book for all people to know? I thought Lee and PAP are so white like the white clothing they like to wear.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
someone must be very sick up there to do all these
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just as it is unthinkable to have fair competition during elections as in removing the GRCs.i think it’s even more unthinkable to have opposition members sitting on the ISA
unless we vote in more opposition members in the first instance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Old Guy on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 4:23 pm
All the more reason you should vote for opposition. Your vote can have an impact to end this sad situation. Don’t use it to maintain the status quo. Use it to effect change for the better.
Time for change is now. Vote Opposition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes! must have check & balance system, all the things the Public loss,must aquire back from the PAP.The Oldfarts must get arrested and spend this last Ten Years In Prison.Nail him in the coffin B 4 he get up!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmm… what happened to the Mas Selemat fiasco? Check and balance? What bullshlt is this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PAP is like a social escort saying “sorry, i am just making friends and having fun, not prostituting”
it is also like a gambler at 4D outlet saying” i am just investing my money,not speculating”
it is like a drunkard at a bar saying “i am not drunk yet, i promise this is my last bottle”
remember augustine ” In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery”
“Give me chastity and continence, but not yet”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
他們說的，並不是他們做或會做的。
總而言之，在說屁話！
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘Checks and balances’? Another myth perpetuated by the PAP and the ever compliant state media. I doubt the independence of the Advisory Board and Inspection – the PAP govt will never allow an independent body to check on its operations. The PAP has long memories, they will neither forgive nor forget.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow…talk so much…nothing mentioned bout the JI detainees…whether they really attempted to or not? How much was their involvement? Maybe because they deserve it ah?
Pure double standards…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shanmugam, what checks and balance are you talking about ?
First of all where is the balance with 82 PAP MPs vs 2 Opp MPs
in parliament and where are the checks with 81 PAP stooges so compliant to one old fart ? How about the judiciary’s lack of independence as mentioned by IBA ?
In other words how to trust what you claim Shanmugam !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A highly-experienced-VIRGIN-PROSTITUTE-argument? Where are all the believers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How come the govt allow this spin-minister to go to US and “throw our face”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Check and balance assumed the use of watchdogs to check excesses.
BUT WHO WATCHES THE WATCHDOGS?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some details are required to clear any misleading information presented:
1. Mr Shanmugam said that a detainee has the right to make representations to an Advisory Board, which must be considered, and is free to engage a lawyer of his choice for this.
The keyword in teh statement is ‘considered’. Although the Advisory Board is headed by a Judge, the board’s findings or opinions are purely to be considered and NOT BINDING.
2. The Advisory Board aside, members of a Board of Inspection, comprising Justices of the Peace and community leaders, can make unscheduled visits to the ISA detention facility and meet detainees.
The BOI although also headed by a Justice of Peace, they are also playing an advisory role and their decision or findings are NOT BINDING.
The High Court has no Judicial Review powers nor Jurisdiction on ISA matters and even the President has NO SAY although techinically and legally, the detention HAS TO BE vetted and ’seconded’ by him.
The President can disagree and the Home Affair Minister can still proceed with the detention by signing on the President’s behalf. As a matter of fact, almost all of the detention was signed by the Home Affairs Minister, for the President.
Plainly put to the nut shell, the sole decision to detain or release rests on the Home Affairs Millisters ONLY, in the absence of any instruction from the TOP (you know who).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To AVOID DOUBT of injustice and to demolish all contention of having DUBIOUS CHECKS AND BALANCES in place, the Law Minister should have taken the opportunity of public audience to announce his and the Government’s intent that we shall legislate the BILLS OF RIGHTS legislation in protection of citizenry’s fair treatment at law similar to those in application in USA, Canada and UK.
That way, the citizenryp got some minimal protection of wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, unsustainable criminal charge and risks of miscarraige of justice fouling up law and order in this country as happened recently.
I am sure the doubting audience would have given him a BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE, HEARTFELT APPRECIATION AND SILENT ADMIRATION OF HIS CONCERN FOR EQUITY AT LAW.
Why didn’t him GRAB THAT MOMENTOUS HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY of our nation iconic pride on the world stage of media spotlight?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This more than 40 years on since Operation ColdStore and 20 years since Operation Spectrum. Not a shred of evidence has been disclosed by the ISD, evidence which should have been long harmless (especially after the demise of communism).
The assumption is they got nothing and had unjustly subject citizens to long detentions without trial. These detentions must be deduction the means by which the PAP had rid itself of all opposition.
Shanmugam a man of law should speak from evidence and not what he calls ‘checks and balances’ which are in the hands of the ruling party.
Tomorrow’s history will be merciless to those who perpetrated such injustices. A responsibility which our historians should not shirk.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0