An personal account by Ms Teo Soh Lung of her experience in Operation Spectrum.
“They are at my door”, the voice on the line was Souk Yee’s. “What should I do?” she asked. Well, what can one do when “they are at the door?”
It was funny. Didn’t we discuss the possibility that we would be rearrested after issuing the joint statement? May be not. Or was it amnesia? I don’t know. What can one do when “they” are at the door? If you refuse to open it, they break down the door. It is that simple. If you open it, then well, you sit and stare in despair while they go through all your documents and things, seize whatever they fancy and then you are led to their waiting cars which will take you to the blue gate.
Shortly after that phone call, “they” were at my office gate. And of course, it was pointless not to let them in. They came in a horde. They cannot handle civil people single-handedly. And they were rude because they had been instructed that they were dealing with terrorists.
As usual, they rummaged through my files, books and documents and dumped them in black rubbish bags. They even checked my waste paper basket.
Today, 26 years ago, they took me away to Whitley Road Centre for a second time. They were kinder this time. They didn’t take me in the early hours of the morning. They trailed me from home to office and there they arrested me. Then they took me from office to home in order to conduct another search. What a waste of time.
At the detention centre, I went through the usual routine. Finger printed and photographed, I was made to strip and change into prison clothes. Then I was sent to the cold interrogation room sans shoes and underwear. I was a “die hard” and deserved to be punished more than before because I didn’t learn my lesson. Spending 20 hours or more in the cold room and then thrown into a dirty, dusty cob-webbed tiny cell for three or four hours became the routine.
What was there to extract from me? The statement had said it all.
I was wrong. They wanted to know who instigated the drafting and issue of the statement. They wanted to know why we issued it – as if they didn’t know that the ministers were the ones who compelled us to react and they not us should have been arrested! They wanted the details of how the statement came about, who said what and who wrote what. They were in earnest anger because they felt that all the “good treatment” they gave us when we were first arrested had not been reciprocated. They were rewarded with awards after our first arrests and now we were back again. The culprits must be punished for bringing them indescribable embarrassment. They must know who caused the mess. Who was the leader!
Well, we were smart enough to anticipate that last question. It was all agreed that “All of us were leaders!” Hilarious on hindsight but naive and sincere at the time of deliberations. The ministers provoked us by their repeated groundless allegations that we were conspiring to destabilise Singapore using communist united front tactics and we reacted with a written statement. Wasn’t that reasonable? In law, we would have a complete defence if we reacted to provocation in a reasonable manner. But in fact, it was naïve to expect civilised reaction from red face ministers.
Under pressure and cold room treatment, I heard that there was much recriminations and regrets among those arrested. I too regretted for landing up in prison again, not just me alone but so many others! I was told by my interrogators that some of my friends were cooperating fully. “They all said the idea of issuing the statement came from me.” And so I was the one who was responsible for their rearrests. It was a monstrous conclusion which nearly drove me into a state of depression. But I survived.
Reflecting on what happened 26 years ago, I can say that I am proud to be one of the nine signatories of the joint statement. Life is a journey of experiences. Life is a daring adventure or nothing. That episode has certainly been one of the most exciting and daring adventure in my life. I thank my family, my lawyers, my friends and supporters for believing in me and supporting me through those tumultuous days.
Below is a photograph taken on 8 December 1988 showing my lawyer, Roslina Baba with the Order of the court of appeal which ordered the release of some of us on a technical point. We were immediately rearrested outside the detention centre on the opposite side of the gate. They have cleared that side of the road so that no one could witness the rearrests.
detention centre

Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

印方称三名印度士兵 与中国军队冲突中丧生

印度军方在一份声明指出,由三名士兵在克什米尔的Ladakh地区,在与中国军队冲突中丧生。 声明也指,双方高级军事官员已会晤以缓和局势,惟没有透露更多细节。 中印两国自今年5月以来,就在加勒万河谷(Galwan valley)到班公错一带,陷入紧张对峙,这也是中印1962年发生战争的地方。 中国外交部发言人赵立坚则在今日(16日)作出回应,呼吁印度不要采取单方面行动挑起事端,也谴责印度违背两国共识,两次越过边境线,“挑衅和攻击中方人员,导致双方部队发生严重肢体冲突”。 至于印方则指双方没有发生枪击事件,而是激烈肢体冲突,被打死的人包括一名上校。

【冠状病毒19】皇冠假日酒店现两例确诊 即日起关闭14天

本地周四(7日)新增两例社区病例,包括一名43岁持有工作准证的马来西亚籍女子确诊,她在樟宜机场皇冠假日酒店的Azur 餐馆工作,这也是自周三(6日)24岁韩籍男子确诊后,再有一名机场皇冠假日酒店Azur餐厅员工确诊。 根据卫生部的文告,确诊女员工职务包括为机组人员和酒店客人送餐,食物已预前包装好,而他和餐厅的客人没有接触。 她在本月3日出现症状,5日前往诊所求医并接受冠病检测,隔天确诊感染,随后被送往国家传染病中心接受治疗。 而她的血清检测则呈阴性,因此很可能是近期感染病毒。她也在12月31日曾接受常规检测(RRT)呈阴性,初步检测显示可能没有感染B117毒株。 由于皇冠假日酒店传出两例确诊病例,因此卫生部也对病例展开调查。初步调查显示,当局不排除出现内部感染的可能。 对此,皇冠假日酒店即本周五(8日)起,至21日暂时关闭,酒店设施和宴会厅也将会关闭。 而酒店已停止接受新房客,现有的酒店房客和外国机组人员也会被安排退房,来临入住的机组人员也将会转移至另一制定设施。 酒店在关闭期间将会进行深度清洁和消毒,卫生部也会安排所有酒店职员接受冠病检测。 除了上述病例,本地昨日也出现一社区病例,该病例为63岁本地男子,目前是在Dnata机场货运中心,担任货仓操作员,负责为印尼航空公司My Indo处理上货和卸货的工作,与乘客未有接触。 他在本月4日出现急性呼吸道感染(ARI)的症状,6日前往樟宜综合医院,当天便确诊感染入院治疗。…

Revised Fees for Vehicle Entry Permit and Goods Vehicle Permit with effect from 1 August 2014

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has announced that from 1 August 2014…

GPS-based instrument approach procedures to replace ILS for Seletar Airport via joint effort between Singapore and Malaysia

An instrument approach based on the Global Positioning System (GPS) is in…