In support of the 16 ex-detainees’ call for the Commission of Inquiry to investigate their detentions, TOC republishes this article which first appeared in TOC on May 19, 2009.


Next on TOC: Lone opposition MP in Parliament in 1987, Mr Chiam See Tong, calls for the release of those detained under the ISA. TOC brings you transcripts of the day’s Parliamentary debate.

Teo Soh Lung was one of the original 16 accused of being part of a “Marxist plot” to bring down the Singapore government. She, along with 15 others, were arrested and detained under the Internal Security Act on 21 May 1987. Ms Teo spent two and a half years under detention.

Earlier this year, Ms Teo had several of her poems, which she had written while in prison, published in the book, “Our Thoughts Are Free”. (See TOC’s report of the book launch).

Teo Soh Lung

In the early 1980s, my good Catholic friend, the late Aileen Lau and I together with some others, helped to set up the Geylang Catholic Centre (GCC) at Lorong 17 Geylang. I think I worked 6 days a week without any salary. The work entailed teaching foreign workers how to speak English, giving talks on employment law and immigration, encouraging friendly table tennis competitions between the GCC and the Jurong Centre for workers.

In the 1980s the GCC was involved in a variety of activities. There were activities for foreign workers, Filipino domestic workers, ex criminals and ex drug addicts. At one time, the center was also involved in crisis management. There was a crisis center for battered women. I was not really involved in the crisis centre but made friends with some social workers and helped out when there was a need.

Filled with naiveté and idealism, I started a law firm at the Aljunied Industrial Estate. I rented one room above a tile shop. With the donation of a manual Olympia typewriter from my father, I began work as a lawyer. My aim was to make lawyers accessible to the people. I think my firm was the first to be operating outside the city.

I cannot remember how I managed to survive during those days. I was doing legal work as well as doing volunteer work at the GCC. I shuttled between Aljunied and Geylang.

My idealism attracted a young and bright lawyer by the name of Lai Maylene.

Subsequently another friend, Lee Kim Huay, joined us and the little room could not accommodate us. We then found a flat at Lorong 11 Geylang. We continued to work closely with the GCC while establishing our legal practice. We also found time to relax and kept in touch with friends in the legal profession and the University. Every Friday, we would have a cheese and wine session when we would invite a few friends. We would talk about anything and it was during one of those wine and cheese sessions that the idea of setting up a criminal legal aid scheme was hatched.

Our firm in Geylang was a meeting place for friends. There is a saying that an idle mind is the devil’s workshop. Legal practice in the 80s was I think quite relaxed. There was always time for friends who dropped by unannounced. We would talk about anything, walk to the coffeeshop for a drink etc.

So it was that in the 1984 elections, our law firm became a focal point for election activities. Some of us became election agents for the Workers’ Party and we were very busy throughout the hustings.

After the 1984 elections, I decided to concentrate on work in the Law Society. I did not want to be accused of mixing politics with the work in the Society and so I stopped helping the Workers’ Party. I chaired a group and did the following work for the society.

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill No. 7/85

In 1985, I was asked by the Society to prepare a report on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill No. 7/85. The bill sought to deprive Singaporeans who failed to return to Singapore for a period of 10 years of their citizenship. I dutifully put up the report.

Criminal Legal Aid Scheme

As I said earlier, some lawyers and I were interested in the setting up of a Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. After several years of work, we finally sold the idea to the Law Society or rather, the President, Harry Elias. He asked us to help him set up the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. The Scheme was set up in May 1986.

Following the setting up of the scheme, I became even more involved in the work of the Law Society. I had always held the view that lawyers must play an active part in society. The law society prior to 1986 was, I think, a dead society. The chance to become active in the society came when Francis Seow was elected as its President. I approached him and told him that I was interested to help in the society’s work. I was asked to chair the Special Assignments Sub-Committee subsequently.

Independence of the Judiciary

I was involved in the preparation of a report to the Society on the Independence of the Judiciary. The then Justice T S Sinnathuray was then heading a Commission of Inquiry on the Independence of the Judiciary after Mr J B Jeyaretnam said in parliament that there was executive interference when the Senior District Judge, Mr Michael Khoo, was transferred from the Subordinate Courts to the AG’s Chambers after ruling rather favourably in Mr Jeyaretnam’s case.

The Special Assignments Sub-Committee also prepared reports on the Newspaper and Printing Presses Amendment Bill and the Legal Profession Amendment Bill No. 20/86. The 2 reports generated much discussion in the press. The intent of the Legal Profession Amendment Bill was clearly to deprive the then President of the Law Society, Francis Seow, of his position as its president and to further control the members of the society.

The report opposing the amendment to the Legal Profession Amendment Bill was sent to the Attorney General, Mr Tan Boon Teik. He did not respond. Because the Attorney General did not respond, the Society decided to publicise its views and the newspapers then carried an article on the bill. I think the article generated a great deal of discussion.

Members of the society knew that the bill would become law as a matter of course. I do not know whether it was folly or courage that I decided to call an extraordinary general meeting to persuade the government to withdraw the bill. Just before the EOGM, the government announced the setting up of a Parliamentary Select Committee to look into the bill. Views would be studied.

Some friends advised me to call off the meeting since the government was going to listen to views. Again I was foolish enough to check the Standing Orders and realised that a select committee cannot radically amend the bill at the second reading. It could only correct grammatical and minor errors. So there was no choice but to proceed with the extraordinary general meeting.

Some 400 out of a total of about 1200 members of the society turned up at the meeting. One senior member proposed an amendment to the motion by deleting the reasons for requesting a withdrawal of the bill. Patrick Seong, who seconded my motion, and I had a quick discussion and immediately accepted the proposal. The amended motion was put to vote and I think the vote was overwhelming, maybe 402 for with 2 abstentions.

Select Committee Hearing on 9 October 1986

I think the overwhelming support for the withdrawal of the bill at the extraordinary general meeting sent a panic button to the government. The entire council of the Law Society and the members of the Special Assignment Sub Committee were summoned before the select committee. After the 2 day hearing, I was warned by fellow members of the Bar to lie low. I did but it was too late!

I had submitted my name to stand as a member of the Council of the Law Society before the select committee hearing was announced. Whether it was sympathy or defiance of the members, I was voted into council with a good number of votes – I think 4 votes behind a very senior member of the Bar. In 1986, I had just entered the category of senior lawyers (i.e. lawyers with more than 12 years of practice).

You can arrive at your own conclusion as to why I was detained under the ISA.

——

On 21st May 2009, which marks the 22nd anniversary of ‘Operation Spectrum’, a group of concerned Singaporeans will be demonstrating against the treatment of the detainees who were detained without trial under the ISA. You are invited to come to Speakers Corner to remember this day.

6.30pm, 21st May 2009
Speakers Corner, Hong Lim Park

——

Read also:

Operation Spectrum – 22 years later

Remember May 21st

Passion for activism extinguished… but not for long

May 1987 – A conspiracy un-proved

——-

Also:

“Marxist Conspiracy” revisited

——-

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

【民主党财案论坛】我国应减少对外籍PMET依赖 淡马亚忧医疗体系复杂、人民无法负担费用

上周三,民主党举办网络论坛直播,分析执政政府的2020年财政预算案。该党认为政府看似过于专注“微调而复杂的计划”,却恰恰错过了一个关键的时机,让新加坡进行必要的改革,以减低工薪阶层与中产阶级的财政负担。 另一方面,尽管公平考量框架(,Fair Consideration Framework,FCF)正朝着正确的方向迈进,但民主党中委江伟贤表示,新加坡仍需要减少对外国PMET的依赖。 日前,人力部长杨莉明曾揭露,本地有1千家公司在聘雇时未优先考虑本地雇员;当局也有意进一步收紧外籍劳工制度。 江伟贤认为,种种报道均显示,本地出现不公平招聘的现象,同时也导致部分行业容易聚集外国人,从而引发一个问题:新加坡人是否在相同职位上缺乏某些技能,让企业更容易去招聘外国人? 江伟贤表示,他认同新加坡人作为注重国际发展的城市,要完全封闭外国人才流入是相当不利的,但要解决新加坡歧视招聘问题,关键还是在员工的特质,所以针对外国员工,应限制其条件,即指只有拥有合适的技能,并且该技能在国内属于“短缺”的,才符合外国人招聘资格。 “这也意味着,外国招聘是旨在辅助我国劳动力,而不仅仅只是因为他们(外国劳工)是低成本工人,以此提升我们的经济。” 江伟贤也强调,在同样的资历竞争下,本地人不应该因外国人的出现,被迫领取较低工资。与此同时,民主党也呼吁应该提高最低工资标准,将社会经济差距拉近。 他举例,澳洲的蓝领阶级更愿意站在自己的岗位上工作,是因为他们领取相对应的工资,让他们能够更有尊严的生活。 公积金不应再采取强制性措施,应该是要想尽办法说服人民 针对公积金的处理,民主党成员兼企业家Alfred…

自新西兰澳洲部分城市起飞 即起可在樟宜机场过境

新加坡航空宣布,即日起乘搭该公司、胜安航空及酷航,从澳大利亚和新西兰部分城市起飞的班机,将可以通过樟宜机场过境。 新航今日(6月11日)在脸书帖文,分享这份好消息,但是过境航班只限于出境行程,从其他地点飞往上述两国的航班则不能在我国过境。 文中所指的城市,包括了澳洲的阿德雷德、布里斯班、墨尔本、珀斯和悉尼,还有新西兰的基督城和奥克兰。 除此之外,新航还提供了三家公司的航班时间表,并表示过境乘客在抵达樟宜机场后,将会和非过境乘客分开,被安置在制定的区域等候。而过境乘客也有可能被直接带到登机口,若他们的过境时间是在75分钟以内。 惟,在登机程序上,过境乘客会先登机,之后才到非过境乘客。着陆下机时则相反,会让非过境乘客先下机。 在飞机上,新航也会将过境乘客和非过境乘客分开区域安置,并且要求乘客在行程中,只能在各自的指定区域内行动。

Human Rights Watch – Same-sex penguins threaten Singapore

Human Rights Watch / Graeme Reid, Director, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program…

Workers’ Party MP Sylvia Lim questions MINDEF’s latest purchases and its implications

Earlier this week, the Workers’ Party (WP) posed several questions in Parliament…