Filmmaker Martyn See organised a forum on the events of 1987 and 1988, when the government detained without trial over 20 people for an alleged “Marxist conspiracy”. This is not dead history; it has consequences that live on to this day, e.g. the behaviour of lawyers. But have we moved on? Is there any point harping on this episode which may only reinforce a climate of fear? Full essay.
Pages
Categories
Recent Comments
- cy on Two oppositions, and why in the long run, they may not matter at all, part 1
- Robert L on Stone-age sex law hidden in plain sight
- Robox on Two oppositions, and why in the long run, they may not matter at all, part 1
- Robox on Two oppositions, and why in the long run, they may not matter at all, part 1
- sparrow on Lavender to Bugis
- dyno on Two oppositions, and why in the long run, they may not matter at all, part 1
- chris on Two oppositions, and why in the long run, they may not matter at all, part 1
- yawningbread on Stone-age sex law hidden in plain sight
- Cymric on Stone-age sex law hidden in plain sight
- beka on Stone-age sex law hidden in plain sight
- tech98 on Austin day 5
- yawningbread on Stone-age sex law hidden in plain sight
- Tan Wee Cheng on London day 5
- Teck Soon on Stone-age sex law hidden in plain sight
- Anonymous too on Stone-age sex law hidden in plain sight
I’ve always been vaguely aware about some of the abuses committed under ISA but not about the extent of them.
I also wasn’t aware about most or all of those events listed. Incidentally, I’ve never heard any mention about them: whether among friends, acquaintances or family, on tv or in papers, or even online.
Btw, does anyone know what webhost yawningbread.org uses?
I wouldn’t say you’re wrong, but probably incorrect to assume that Martyn See’s exercise is not valuable because of the changing reality we see with TWC2 and other NGOs.
If unchecked, blatant political abuse of power is bound to repeat itself, almost always in some derivative form or related act.
The event pushed the boundaries of the right to assemble and associate freely, and served to remind ourselves that the mighty PAP government is not a shining example of best practices it makes itself out to be.
Thanks for providing your write up on the event.
We must remind the younger generation that the PAP can and will use such brute force on activists. The fact that the ISD is still monitoring social and political activists is a clear sign. They wouldn’t spend time and effort tracking them for nothing, would they?
And forget about international intervention when that happens. Even the US or Europe didn’t interfere then (despite releasing statements debunking the entire ‘conspiracy), don’t expect them to interfere now.
Lastly, don’t be surprised if just like before, many of the current batch of NGOs, activists and politicians run for cover and not help the detained either.
Reality check.
Quote: “Did Lee Kuan Yew really think that labeling Vincent Cheng et al “Marxists” would convince anybody?”
Dear YB, you are so right. This had been the final straw that convinced me that LKY had turn from being a hero to being a monster. I have always seen him as a monster from the years since then.
Thank you most profoundly for this article. Those shameful events should never be forgotten. It serves to prove that the ISA act should be abolished, that piece of scurrilous legislation is nothing but a tool of a dictatorship.
Interesting and provocative article.
The criticism that lawyers were not creative enough after the ISA was amended to do away with judicial review is not fair.
4 detainees (including me) took out habeas corpus proceedings against the government. The Court of Appeal in Chng Suan Tze and 2 Ors released us on a technical ground. Incidentally, my lawyers did not raise this technical ground but the judges thought they were doing me a favour by releasing me as well. The release was just for a few minutes for soon after we were driven out of the prison gate, ISD officers rearrested all of us.
Being a lawyer then and having great faith in the courts, I filed habeas proceedings once again. Parliament then proceeded to amend the ISA to abolish judicial review. I lost the case in the Court of Appeal. The judgement did not respond to the eloquent submissions on judicial review of Lord Alexander QC who acted for me in the appeal. I would have proceeded to the Privy Council had parliament not removed that avenue.
On the criticism that detainees could have sued the government for torture but did not, well, I did. Unfortunately, I had to abandon my claim for damages and paid cost in exchange for my release after the Court of Appeal dismissed my appeal. I could have chosen to stay in jail indefinitely though but I did not.
As for living blissfully by not knowing the past, I guess it is a personal choice.
Ms Teo, thank you very much for breaking the silence.
Ms Teo has exhausted all avenues. No one on earth could or would help her.
Teo Soh Lung – I didn’t know you pursued it legally as far as that, and in the forum, no one brought it up or seemed to know either when we discussed this. But it’s good to know that you tried.
This reminds me of a point myself a number of others made on that day – that this story of the 1987 and 1988 detentions suffers for an insufficiency of detail and of telling.
We have on the one side, the simplistic story put out by the government, but no information about the inner workings behind its decisions and execution.
On the other side, except for Francis Seow’s writings, we have a nearly equal paucity of detail about what the alled “marxist conspirators” had been doing prior to arrest, and what happened after. Even the little book published recently contained just sktechy stories form 2 or 3 detainees. Nothing from the rest.
Both sides seem unwilling to say very much.
People lose interest when a story appears both emotionally distant and detail-wise, sparse. Yet, it is a real pity because what you guys went through was a searing experience and an important lesson in the civics lesson for all Singaporeans. If we collectively do not undergo a national self-criticism and catharsis over it, we will never move forward as a democracy and in the rule of law.
Re lawyers, I wasn’t referring to you, but to the law profession in general. We don’t see them rising up like lawyers regularly do in Malaysia over a similar Internal Security Act.
But thanks for reading and responding. Much appreciated. Singapore needs this public conversation.
Hey, YB. I have been hesitating about writing exactly what I’m about to but decided to after this post from you.
In the absence of accountability from the government on this issue, there can only be speculation about this ignominious event.
This is my own theory about what might have truly happened.
1. The people detained were all Catholic social workers.
2. Catholics are known worldwide for their strong sense of social justice, which the PAP government decided for the sake of political expediency to criminalize as an evil called ‘liberation theology’ which most Catholics in Singapore had not even heard of. The detained Catholic social workers could well have been typical of the people who might have found gainful employment in any NGO anywhere in the world that is not antagonistic towards social (and political) justice. Catholic ‘liberation theology’ then was the antithesis of the PAP’s march towards its now entrenched fascism and thus a threat to the PAP.
3. At the time of the arrests, many Singaporeans I have spoken to had also noted a sudden upsurge of aggressive attempts at Christian proselytizing by Christians of the steeplejacked churches variety.
4. Also after that period, there has been a burgeoning of social services agencies run by Christians (of the steeplejacked variety), the kind that has been referred to as “Christian charity scams” and that are more about aggressive conversions to Christianity than of any charity work.
I believe that there is far more to this than meets the eye and you’re right: “If we collectively do not undergo a national self-criticism and catharsis over it, we will never move forward as a democracy and in the rule of law.” and that “Singapore needs this public conversation.”
Just a thought:
If few or no one speaks up about the injustices delivered to them, then won’t the cycle just keep repeating itself?
Having read about some of the more recent arrests(PoThePanda, etc.) under the ISA and perhaps other Acts, I think these crackdowns and arrests will likely never stop until there’s more public awareness. And then, I’ve to wonder if there’re more arrests which have never been mentioned or brought to light.
And thanks, Ms Teo for the reply.
Fact checks.
To alex:
#1 : I began the forum by going through the chronology of events from 1987 to 1990. Many of these chapters included applications and dismissals of habeas corpus proceedings by detainees.
To robox:
#2 : Not all detained were Catholics. And definitely not all were social workers. Others in the group included lawyers, lecturers, theatre practitioners, students, entrepreneurs and even a subtitler for the then Singapore Broadcasting Corporation.
What triggered the arrests? Perhaps it was a reaction to the people’s power revolution that toppled Marcos the year before, perhaps it was the fear of sudden surge of professionals helping the Workers’Party, perhaps LKY needed to prove to the 2nd generation leaders that he’s still the boss.. Who knows? Even the ex-detainees can’t figure it out.
But the public conversation should continue..
Thanks Martyn, for your reply and also for organizing the forum.
While you have definitely given my memory a jolt with your clarifications, I still remember Catholicism, and particularly liberation theology being singled out for special mention. But yes, the support for the late JB Jeyaratnam’s Workers Party sounds like a plausible explanation; the man after all inspired an entire slew of retaliatory legislation to curb him much like Dr Chee and the SDP have been doing.
yawning bread
“Both sides seem unwilling to say very much.”
On 18 April 1988, 9 of us who were released on restrictions the year before, issued a joint press statement disputing the government’s account. (This statement is found in various publications). The next morning, we were all rearrested except for Tang Fong Har who was then in the United Kingdom. She remains an exile to this day.
“Yet, it is a real pity because what you guys went through was a searing experience and an important lesson in the civics lesson for all Singaporeans. If we collectively do not undergo a national self-criticism and catharsis over it, we will never move forward as a democracy and in the rule of law.”
Two decades have flown by and we have all grown older and hopefully, more sensible. I don’t know if our government too have matured to accept alternative history and criticisms without retaliation? The myriad of recent legislations targetting individuals are just too frightening for me. It is the same old style. JBJ, Tan Wah Piow, Paul Lim, Francis Seow, Tang Liang Hong, Chee Soon Juan and I suffered the same fate.
But on the brighter side of things, Singapore belongs to the young and I would like to dream that all of you can make a difference.