~By: Teo Soh Lung ~

 

My last response to Minister Teo Chee Hean’s speech in parliament that was reported in The Straits Times of 20 October 2011 was made on 9 November 2011. The sub-title to that reply was Making use of the Church and it drew a number of pretty angry comments.  In between then and now, I was somehow distracted by other issues.  The news-cuttings of Minister Teo’s memorable speech however, has not been misplaced all these months. It has suffered some severe damage under the claws of my cat, Angel though. She was probably more angry at the speech than me!
 
As the 25 anniversary of the 1987 arrest of “Marxist conspirators” approaches, I want to demolish once and for all Minister Teo’s specious assurance that there are sufficient safeguards under the ISA.  These safeguards are summarised in The Straits Times at page A33 and I shall deal with them in the order set out by its writer or editors.
 
Only 30 days
 
The first safeguard is that a person can only be held for 30 days after which the minister or rather the cabinet have to decide  if he or she should be issued the Order of Detention for a maximum of two years, renewable at the end of the period or released unconditionally or be subjected to a  Restriction Order i.e. subject to conditions, such as restriction of movement or association.
 
I want to emphasise that 30 days in a prison cell or in a freezing cold room is not 30 days spent in one’s own house. Try putting the minister in a freezing cold room with two spotlights shining into his eyes. He is a military man and he should be able to  take the cold better than me. Let him wear the prison garb of cotton top and trousers without his underwear. Make him stand 50 hours out of 72 hours in that room and subject him to continuous interrogation. Let ISD officers shout at him and tell him that everything he said are lies and that he is just good at telling fairy tales. Deprive him of sleep for just three days and nights.
 
If the minister survives these 72 hours (ISD officers don’t even need to lay hands on him) without making and signing a false statement, then he has my greatest admiration and respect.  
 
From my experience and the experience of my friends, no one can survive three days and nights of continuous interrogation in a cold room in the basement of Whitley Detention Centre. From his account in To catch a Tartar, Mr Francis Seow, the former Solicitor-General could not too.  I can say with confidence that even the director of ISD will not be able to withstand 72 hours of continuous interrogation in that cold room. Anyone in Singapore who can survive such treatment without writing a false statement, must either be a hardcore criminal or an imbecile who cannot write a statement no matter how he is threatened.
 
The cold room treatment is not the only experience all ISA detainees go through. For nearly a week, none of us was allowed contact with the outside world.  On the sixth day, two family members were allowed to visit us. Imagine the panic caused to our families when they discover their children, spouses, brothers and sisters missing for 6 long days in a first world country. In this regard, ISA prisoners are accorded treatment worse than ordinary criminals for the latter are at least allowed to be produced in court within 48 hours and family members are informed of their whereabouts by the police.
 
30 days for ISD officers to investigate a conspiracy or fabricate a conspiracy is a long time. I thought we have the brightest scholars working in the ISD? Why do they need 30 days to decide whether to detain a prisoner or release him?  Surely by the end of three days, they would have completed their investigation and either slam the order of detention on them or release them.  Why do they need to fully utilise the 30 days allowed by the law?  Is it to unnecessarily punish the innocent prisoner or is it because they are so inefficient or so daft that they cannot complete their investigation? 
 
But if they are not able to complete their investigation, how is it that they could produce a script for detainees to appear on state television three weeks after our arrest?  Shouldn’t they be putting all their attention on investigating our “crimes” rather than turn us into television stars?  Worse, we or at least I was told that if I didn’t appear on television, they would “throw away the key,” meaning I would languish in jail for a very long time.
 
I shall pause here and continue at a later date because I feel sick remembering what 30 days mean to an ISA detainee.  The ISA in allowing a person to be detained for 30 days is not providing him with any safeguard.  Rather, the law in allowing 30 days for investigation is granting ISD officers and the government more than adequate time to fabricate a story for public consumption, to instil fear in them and to unnecessarily punish and intimidate a detainee.
 
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

全球超过94国都有直播国会议事!

尽管遭到议员和民众等人敦促应直播国会议事,特别是在疫情下让国民能直接、即时地跟进国会讨论的政策。不过,政府对此事似乎兴致缺缺。 更甚的是,傅海燕新闻秘书 Michele Khoo在回应读者评论时,更指出直播恐怕会让国会沦为“表演平台”,国会无意进行现场直播。 新加坡常自诩由第一世界政府管理的第一世界国家。公民理应由知情权,透过直接管道了解国会中讨论的政策、国会表现等。 然而,在国会直播此事项上,新加坡和其他国家相比似乎相形见绌。全球有多达94个国家,包括世界大国:美国、英国、中国、俄罗斯等,乃至东南亚国家如邻国马来西亚、印尼、泰国、菲律宾等,都有进行国会或议院直播! 这些国家或是透过电视、电台广播或是网络直播方式,让民众也能即时地观赏或收听国会议事。 其他有直播国会议事的先进国也包括:瑞士、加拿大、爱尔兰、法国、意大利、南韩、日本、芬兰、匈牙利、奥地利、瑞典、希腊、比利时、冰岛、荷兰、丹麦、卢森堡、西班牙、波兰、保加利亚捷克等等。 事实上,在新加坡通讯及新闻部旗下,仍有一个网络直播频道:https://www.parliamentwebcast.sg/。然而却需要账号和密码才能登入,一般民众是无法登入观赏的。相信这是供政府人员或媒体跟进国会议事使用的专门频道。

Deputy Batam Mayor advises residents not to travel abroad, especially to S’pore

Along with Singapore’s new border restrictions on Indonesian passport holders, Batam authorities…

针对社区护理设施涉嫌获益论 范国瀚向杨莉明道歉

续网民Donald Liew,社运份子范国瀚也在脸书发布一则声明,表示针对早前的言论,向人力部长杨莉明道歉。 本月20日,,人力部长杨莉明以个人名义透过律师信,要求社运份子范国瀚以及名为Donald Liew的人士,撤回有关指责她与丈夫涉嫌从设立社区护理设施牟利的言论。 Donald Liew是在昨日道歉,也删除有关贴文。 至于范国瀚则在声明中表示,早前作出的指控不属实,也毫无保留地向杨莉明道歉。 他称已删除了有关誌期5月16日的贴文,未来也不会针对此事作出类似的指控。