~by: Ellery A~

“Singapore has sufficient laws (other than the ISA) in place to effect public order” – Francis Seow

I know it may not happen in a thousand years but I will not back down until the Singapore government issues an official apology” – Tang Fong Har

With the Internal Security Act (ISA) being the current hot topic in Singapore, about 150 people gathered in the Diamond Room within Quality Hotel, on the 8th of October,  for a dialogue session organized by the Singapore Democratic Party: “Silenced No More: A conversation with Francis Seow and Tang Fong Har”.

Francis Seow is a former Solicitor-General who was elected as President of the Council of the Law Society in 1976. His appointment led to confrontations with then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew over the role of the Law Society in legislation. He also ran for the 1988 General Elections in a Workers’ Party team. However just before the elections, he was detained without trial for 72 days under the ISA; accused of having received funds from the United States. He later left the country and was convicted in absentia. He now resides in Massachusetts.

Tang Fong Har is a lawyer who was detained in 1987 during Operation Spectrum under the ISA. She stated that while detained, she was physically abused and forced to admit guilt of subversion of state. She was released on 12 September 1987 and subsequently left Singapore. She now resides in Hong Kong.

Francis Seow began with a sharing on his ISA ordeal. He said that the government did not accuse him of Marxism, rather they alleged that he was under the influence of the United States’ CIA. “Either way, they win”, he said with a wry smile.

The floor was then opened to members of the public, political figures and inquiring journalists to pose their questions. A notable question from one individual dwelled on whether the removal of ISA would be a risky move, exposing the nation to terrorist threats.

Without hesitation, Francis slammed this notion, saying that the Singapore had sufficient laws in place to effect public order. Seow also regularly talked about then Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew referring to his experiences with the man. “I worked with Lee Kwan Yew, given half the chance, he will manipulate you all again”.

A certain sadness rested upon Francis Seow, as he recounted his failed attempt to renew his expired Singapore passport. Sadness turned to understandable bitterness and cynicism towards Singapore’s judiciary system. “I have no hope for the judiciary system”, he remarked, stating that the judiciary and the ruling party worked “hand in hand”.

However, it seemed that Francis was divided in his opinions. On one hand, he advocated the abolishment of the ISA, trusting that Singapore had other laws that would not leave it vulnerable. On the other hand, his troubled past appeared to have stripped him of whatever faith he had in Singapore’s government and legal institutions. It would give the impression that abolishing a single law would not be enough if the whole system is wrong.

Nonetheless, Francis did not look to be in defeat. Rather, he still had in him a strong sense of justice and a fiery spirit that showed strongly, even on screen.

Next up was Tang Fong Har, calling from her home in Hong Kong. The questions directed to her seemed more personal and Fong Har answered them honestly. At times, Fong Har wore her heart on her sleeve, showing that she was still emotionally affected by that dark period of Singapore’s history so many years ago.

When asked whether she regretted doing what she did in the past, she shook her head. “If anything, I regret doing too little”, she said, to loud applause from the audience. Tang replied that those who stayed in Singapore were “the unsung heroes, they should be applauded”, referring to the eight who were detained again after Operation Spectrum.

Fong Har’s story was an emotional one and her narrative was marked with honesty. “I have a grudge against so many people” she admitted, adding that she would not back down until the ruling party issued an “official apology”.

However, several questioned the relevancy of an issue that seemed almost buried in the past. Would the younger generation care about the stories of the detainees? And if they did, what would they do about it? Fong Har responded by emphasizing that she would not impose on the new generation. Instead, she said that there were far more crucial social issues weighing down on our society.

Instead she wanted people to be aware of what happened all those years ago, of the wrongs that were brought upon so many people. “Something that is wrong, is wrong”, she said. There were no two ways about it.

It was clear from hearing the two speak, that the events of Operation Spectrum still haunted them to this day. Fong Har’s emotional recounting and Francis’ fiery words were testament to this. The two did go through traumatizing experiences and lived in a time when the nation was shrouded in a climate of fear. Both thus wanted to right the wrongs done to them, they wanted justice.

Francis emphasised ISA abolishment, while it appeared that Fong Har wanted more than that, she wanted a sense of closure. However, both knew that their demands were still a tall order for the Singapore government.

Still, Singaporeans, and especially the younger generation, should hold their experiences as an important part of Singapore’s rich past. Remember their tribulations, remember their bravery and learn from their experiences. For what then is history, if we do not learn from it?

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

前女佣拟对检控官 发起纪律研讯

因被前雇主廖文良指偷窃,卷入四年官司的印尼籍前女佣巴蒂,将透过代表律师,申请向涉及检控其案件的检控官,发起纪律研讯。 巴蒂代表律师阿尼尔(Anil Balchandani),今早(23日)出席在高庭的审前会议,这是援引律师专业法令(Legal Profession Act)第82A条文下,针对司法官员的纪律研讯(disciplinary proceeding)。 被要求答辩的是两名署理检控官 Tan Wee Hao和Tan Yanying,他们由总检察署的Kristy Tan Ruyan等人代表。…

Police officer found dead from gunshot wound to the head at Yishun North

The Singapore Police Force (SPF) has announced that a 28-year old male…

“DATA REGISTER”卷土重来 多人被索讨服务费

卷土重来?过去被怀疑冒用红狮头标志的资料公司,改头换面继续向“用户”追讨每年高达490元的服务费,令收信者困惑不已,担忧又是诈欺事件,立马报警处理。 一名脸书用户琳达分享,自己收到来自“数据注册”(DATA REGISTER)的信函,向她索取5年的服务费。 琳达完全没印象自己有订购过相关服务,觉得可疑,于是前往报警,警方则告知他,近期有许多人同样投报,收到有关公司的追债信。 这家成立于2013年的公司“新加坡公司注册”(SINGAPORE COMPANY REGISTER),从2013年10月至11月期间,发函给14万个人或公司单位,要求他们在两周内必须核实公司资料,或者他们的数据将从“新加坡公司注册”的档案中删除。 信函不列公司名注册号曾被控 有将近2万2千收信人,被误导登录该公司网站,不久后就被告知,他们已经订购该公司服务,需要缴付一年490元的服务费。 会计和企业管理局(ACRA)接获超过2千宗投诉,收到信的民众看见信上的红狮头标志,都误以为与ACRA有关。以至于在2013年11月,该局不得不发出警告,声明“新加坡公司注册”与该局毫无关系,并已着手调查此事。 随后,“公司注册”又把名字换成“数据注册”(DATA REGISTER),不过这次有注明公司名,也有注册号,仍继续发函向受害者征收服务费。 法庭是在2016年6月3日,判定该公司在信函中未列明公司实名和注册号,企图制造民众混淆,误以为该公司来自政府部门ACRA,已触犯了公司法令,累计罚款超过20万元。…

若确认国家安全、经济受威胁 陈如斯:总统有权宣布紧急状态

新加坡前进党秘书长陈清木早前建议,若本届政府期限到期疫情仍持续,可考虑由总统组织临时政府,直至疫情结束才召开选举。 对此,国务资政兼国家安全统筹部长张志贤昨日(25日)在国会反驳上述建议,并指尽管在面对疫情危机当儿召开选举并不理想,但展延大选至超过规定的期限也有违宪法。 他声称这类建议“有误导性且无助现况”,他指经过咨询总检察长意见后,后者认为推迟选举至规定的期限是违宪的。 张志贤强调,只有在宣布紧急状态下,才能展延选举。“尽管我国也曾渡过许多危机,不过自我国独立以来,从未展延政府任期超过宪法的规定以外。” 不过,国人为先党党魁陈如斯同样引述新加坡宪法反驳张志贤,指宪法也赋予总统,若确认局势确实危及国家安全、经济和百姓生计,总统有权发布紧急状态。 他认为,眼下冠状病毒19,已威胁到国人的经济和生活。若疫情拖沓至明年4月仍未消散,有理由可宣布紧急状态并展延选举。 陈如斯曾在2011年,与陈清木医生、陈钦亮和陈庆炎博士等人竞选总统。 陈如斯早前在接受本社专访时曾表示,在疫情危机下若召开选举,政府等同把自身利益摆在国人性命健康之上,是“不负责任的”。 他呼吁政府当前应全力抗疫,反对党也会和政府“同仇敌忾”。但是现在选举反而会分散国人的注意力,无法团结国人力量共同抗疫。 在宪法第150条下,国会依据紧急状态下的合理理据,可制定相关法律,与此同时也可展延选举。 若紧急状态结束,所有在紧急状态下制定的法律即作废,意味着那只是为协助国家渡过紧急情况下的临时措施。