Police investigate technology-enabled ISA discussions, James Gomez, 14 Oct 2011

The Singapore Police Force on Wednesday 12 October 2011 launched investigations into two separate events that discussed issues surrounding the need to abolish ISA in the city-state.

According to replies given to the Singapore media in the recent days by the Ministry of Home Affairs, these investigations surround complaints that foreign speakers were discussing domestic political issues in the island republic.

The gathering of information formally got underway Wednesday morning when investigators from two different police divisions began questioning separately two persons issued with a notice to appear for investigations.

One was Mr. Martyn See, executive secretary of NGO Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD) who was questioned at the Cantonment Police Complex, while the other was a recent parliamentary elections candidate, Mr. Alec Tok of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) at the Tanglin Police Station.

The NGO forum organised by Singaporeans For Democracy and attended by 30 people took place on 24 September 2011, featured Malaysian Member of Parliament Tian Chua, Cambodian MP Mu Sochua and Singaporean ex-ISA detainee Vincent Cheng and blogger Alex Au.

In keeping with the Singaporean aversion to politics, the NGO forum had to change its just venue minutes before the activity after the original venue administrator, the Singapore Human Resources Institute, cancelled the pre-paid booking because the event was “political” and locked the participants out. [Jacob 69er: Watch the forum video here]

Two weeks later on 8 October 2011 discussions on the need to abolish the ISA continued at another forum, this time organised by the Singapore Democratic Party. Two overseas based ex-ISA detainees spoke about their experience during detention to some 120 people at a local hotel room via internet teleconferencing.

Promptly on the next day the Ministry of Home Affairs labeled the two (who are ex-Singaporeans due to legal technicalities), Mr Francis Seow, 83 as a “fugitive from justice” and Ms Tang Fong Har, 55 a “foreigner”.

The two former Singaporeans are unable to return due to legal reasons, were said to be “foreigners” participating in domestic politics without being physically present in Singapore thereby giving the police grounds to investigate the SDP for a possible breach of law. [Jacob 69er: Read the reports on the forum here and here]

At the heart of these two investigations is the role of new technology in facilitating discussions on the ISA in Singapore and the need to abolish it.

In the case of the NGO forum, it was billed as a private event and participants were invited through a Facebook events page and email so as not to fall into the category of a public activity.

Yet according to a Facebook posting by Martyn See, he spent 90 minutes with the police answering 48 questions which mainly nitpicked if the NGO event was private or public.

Meanwhile the SDP event is being investigated because the organisers allowed the two ex-ISA detainees residing overseas for the first time in 20 years to interact with members of the public here over Skype.

It is ironic, that on the same day as the SDP forum, the Dalai Lama, when he was unable to secure a visa to travel to South Africa to celebrate Desmond Tutu’s birthday, used the internet and Google+ to communicate with the audience in South Africa and also criticize China.

Although, the investigations in Singapore are in the early stages, Net opinion is generally against these police questionings.

Most think that it is a waste of a tax payers’ money and that the real issue is that the laws pertaining to freedom of expression in Singapore are still behind developments in new technology in comparison to its use in other jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, more persons are expected to be called up for police questioning over these ISA forums in the next days.

Dr. James Gomez is a Singaporean academic and presently manages an independent consulting initiative – The GOMEZ Centre. He is also Executive-Director of Singaporeans For Democracy and a recent parliamentary elections candidate for the Singapore Democratic Party.

GENEVA, Oct 10, 2011 (IPS) – Capital punishment continues to exist because in some countries people are barraged with propaganda depicting it as a curb on crime, which it is not, said Federico Mayor Zaragoza, chair of an international commission against the death penalty that inaugurated its new headquarters in Geneva Monday.

Mayor Zaragoza, director general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) from 1987 to 1999, said that is the case of right-wing Guatemalan presidential candidate Otto Pérez Molina, a retired general favoured to win the Nov. 6 runoff who has pledged to restore the death penalty to clamp down on rampant violent crime.

At the opening of the fourth meeting of the International Commission against the Death Penalty (ICDP), made up of high-ranking personalities from various countries, Mayor Zaragoza told IPS that reactions like Pérez Molina’s might be comprehensible “because these are places where the situation is extremely difficult, especially as a result of drug trafficking,” as well as paramilitary movements. That is also the case in Mexico, he added.

But the death penalty has no dissuasive effect, just as a rise in the price of drugs does not curtail consumption, he said.

The ICDP is focusing in its meeting this week on the application of capital punishment in cases involving drug-related crimes, said another member of the commission, Ruth Dreifuss, who was president of the Swiss Confederation in 1999.

The situation in Africa, where there is an emerging trend away from the death penalty, is another question on the commission’s agenda.

Europe and South America are virtually free of the death penalty, with the exceptions of Belarus and Guyana, respectively. In both regions, said Dreifuss, the countries have supported each other in the will to do away with capital punishment.

The commission will also discuss the case of China, where the members hope a first step taken will be the provision of information on the use of the death penalty.

Although it is known that China is by far the world leader in capital punishment, there are no figures on just how widely it is used – to the extent that global rights watchdog Amnesty International will only say the country executes “thousands”, because “the information does not exist,” said Dreifuss.

The former Swiss leader said the ICDP is now based in Switzerland because her country is a staunch opponent of the death penalty. Like many other countries, it considers the death penalty a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment that violates human rights.

At the international level there is a contradiction because although all cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment is prohibited by the Torture Convention and other global treaties, 58 countries still have the death penalty on their books, she said.

So far, 104 countries have abolished the death penalty while another 35 have a moratorium on executions, Mayor Zaragoza pointed out. “That makes a total of 139 countries without executions, which is good news,” he enthused.

The ultimate goal of the ICDP and other institutions opposed to the death penalty is complete abolition, said Dreifuss.

But the commission has set a more immediate target: a global moratorium by 2015. Many countries have taken the first step on the way to abolition – suspending executions.

Dreifuss said that while a universal moratorium is gaining support year by year in the U.N. General Assembly, “it is still far from being recognised by all.”

The moratorium should also extend to the handing down of death sentences, and not only to executions, she said.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay concurred, in a statement issued on the occasion of the World Day against the Death Penalty, celebrated Monday, Oct. 10.

“Abolishing the death penalty,” she said “is a long process for many countries, which often only comes to closure after a period of difficult and even acrimonious national debate. Until they reach that point, I urge those States still employing the death penalty to place a formal moratorium on its use with a view to ultimately scrap the punishment altogether everywhere.”

She also expressed her point of view to the members of the ICDP who visited her at OHCHR headquarters in the Palais Wilson on the shores of Lake Leman.

One of the reasons the ICDP secretariat was moved from Madrid to Geneva was to boost its visibility among the U.N. agencies and international organisations based in this Swiss city.

Besides Mayor Zaragoza and Dreifuss, the commission includes former Italian prime minister Giuliano Amato; former Haitian prime minister Michèle Duvivier Pierre-Louis; former foreign minister of Algeria Mohammed Bedjaoui; former French justice minister Robert Badinter; and former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The other members are former U.N. high commissioner for human rights Louise Arbour, from Canada; former deputy secretary for human rights in Argentina Rodolfo Mattarollo; the chairwoman of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission, Asma Jahangir; UNESCO chair on philosophy and human rights Ioanna Kuçuradi from Turkey; and former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who in 2009 added his state to the list of 15 U.S. states to abolish the death penalty.

Singaporean Activists Commemorates the 9th World Day Against the Death Penalty

On Sunday, 9 October 2011, nearly 20 local activists and supporters gathered together at the Speakers’ Corner to commemorate the 9th World Day Against the Death Penalty. The event, jointly organised by the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign, We Believe in Second Chances and Think Centre, is part of a global movement started since 2003, to mark October 10 as a World Day against the death penalty across the world. This year’s World Day focuses on the inhumanity of the death penalty as a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.

In a statement (Annex) read out at the gathering, it was reiterated that the death penalty “is an ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment and it fundamentally goes against Article 3 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights that states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.” The Singapore Government however, guards it’s ‘right’ to impose the death penalty and had been the leading opposition voice in the United Nations against calls for a moratorium on death penalty. Most recently it rejected recommendations to abolish or to impose a moratorium made during Singapore’s Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council (6 May 2011).

Today the world is increasingly moving away from accepting the use of death penalty with two thirds of the world’s countries having already abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Concerned Singaporeans continues to urge the Singapore Government to rethink it’s current stance on the death penalty and impose a moratorium to create the time and space for society to explore alternate sentencing options and to work ultimately towards its abolishment.

For media enquires, contact following spokespersons:
Rachel Zeng, SADPC (rachelabsinthe@gmail.com)
Sinapan Samydorai, Think Centre (thinkcentre@hotmail.com)

Annex

Statement delivered on 4.30pm, 9 October 2011, Speakers’ Corner, Hong Lim Park, Singapore

Dear Friends,

We are here today to commemorate the World Day Against the Death Penalty. We would like to once again express our solidarity, with groups and individuals all over the world, in calling for a worldwide end to the use of the death penalty on this day. We believe that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.

The death penalty is an ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment and it fundamentally goes against Article 3 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights that states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.

To date, two thirds of the world’s countries have already abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. This is confirmed by the increase in the number of states supporting a UN General Assembly’s resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to abolishing it since 2007. Efforts made by activists and organizations all over the world who have worked for years to persuade their governments to abolish this form of punishment have also contributed greatly to this development.

In Singapore, it seems that we still remain in the dark ages keeping company with other countries that continues to uphold this abhorrent practice. Locally, the application of the death penalty is problematic as it is rendered as mandatory sentencing, for categories of crimes such as drug trafficking, murder, kidnapping, treason and certain firearms offences.

The majority of publicly known capital cases are related to drug trafficking and related offenses. This is largely due to the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) whereby anyone found carrying the stipulated amount of controlled drugs listed in Section 17 of the Act, shall be presumed to be in possession for the purpose of drug trafficking unless proven otherwise. This meant the presumption of innocence is not guaranteed and the burden of proof shifted to the accused. When convicted, the accused persons are almost guaranteed to meet the hangman unless his clemency plea is accepted by the President of Singapore – of which, not a single appeal has succeeded in the last 12 years.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that the mandatory death penalty (MDP), effectively ties the judges’ hands and deny them of the discretion to look into the mitigating factors. For example, outside of drug-related offences the MDP is also applied against crimes of passion such as murders committed in the spur of the moment when emotions are running high, as well as offenders of unsound mind or sub-par intellect. Such instances only fails to prove the much vaulted deterrence factor of the death penalty that is often purported by the State, and there is always the risk of error in applying the death penalty.

The death penalty has been reduced to an exercise in administrative expediency, with the government withholding crucial statistical figures on the State’s use of the death penalty from the public sphere. Without the necessary facts and figures corroborating the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent, the government cannot continue to insist anecdotally that the death penalty is effective in curbing specific crimes.

A conflicting message is also being sent out to our society: we do not condone murder nor do we allow euthanasia, and persons who attempts suicide are committing a crime but yet we allow the Government the liberty of prescribing death and execute premeditated killings, even for non-violent and non-heinous crimes. At what cost to the sanctity of life do we want to maintain peace and security for our society?

We call for a paradigm shift in our judicial system and principles, a shift away from the emphasis on retributive justice as can be seen with the State pre-occupation with the death penalty, towards the emphasis on restorative aspects of justice.

Thank You.

Jacob 69er: See here for photos of the event.

EU reaffirms call to abolish death penalty, TODAY, 10 Oct 2011

The European Union’s Delegation to Singapore sent out a press release today – the World Day Against the Death Penalty – calling for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

The press release, in full, reads as follows:

“On the occasion of the 2011 European and World Day Against The Death Penalty, Catherine Ashton, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy reaffirmed the European Union’s opposition to the death penalty and Europe’s commitment to its worldwide abolition.

“The EU urges all countries whose legislation includes the death penalty as a form of punishment to immediately introduce a moratorium with a view of a complete abolition.

“A joint declaration released today in Brussels by the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (the Council of Europe is an international organisation that counts 47 member countries, including all 27 member countries of the EU) states that:

“The European Union and the Council of Europe reaffirm their united opposition to the death penalty, and their commitment to its worldwide abolition. We consider capital punishment to be inhumane, and a violation of human dignity. Any capital punishment resulting from a miscarriage of justice, from which no legal system can be immune, represents an irreversible loss of human life.

“We welcome the United Nations’ recent resolutions on the global moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to its complete abolition, supported by a wide coalition of States from all regions of the world. The growing support granted to UN resolutions on this matter in 2007, 2008 and 2010 confirms an increasing international trend against the death penalty.”

The EU Delegation to Singapore futher noted that “a growing number of countries have done away with the death penalty (between 1993 and 2009, from 55 countries to 97)”. As of today, 58 countries in the world still retain the death penalty, including Singapore.

Below is a statement calling for the abolition of the ISA by 16 former ISA detainees who together spent more than 100 years in prison without trial.

Abolish Singapore’s Internal Security Act

We welcome Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s announcement that his government would repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Emergency Ordinance. He said the changes are aimed at “having a modern, mature and functioning democracy which will continue to preserve public order, ensure greater civil liberties and maintain racial harmony.” We look forward to the Malaysian Prime Minister fulfilling his promise to his people.

Singapore inherited the ISA from Malaysia. This law has been in existence for more than half a century and its impact on society is both crippling and pernicious. Its life began soon after the Second World War as the Emergency Regulations in 1948 when the British used it to put down strong anti-colonial movements. In 1955, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance incorporating the Emergency Regulations was passed. When Singapore joined Malaysia in 1963, the Federation of Malaya’s Internal Security Act 1960 became part of our law.

The Ministry of Home Affairs claims that:

“ … A person arrested under the ISA in Singapore may be held in custody for up to 30 days after which an Order of Detention or Restriction Order must be issued or else the person must be released unconditionally.

In Malaysia, the period of custody is up to 60 days…” (ST 17.9.2011).

This comparison is irrelevant because political detainees in Singapore have been imprisoned for periods which far exceed those in Malaysia. Dr Chia Thye Poh was imprisoned for 26 years. Dr Lim Hock Siew was imprisoned for 20 years. Mr Lee Tee Tong was imprisoned for 18 years and Dr Poh Soo Kai and Inche Said Zahari for 17 years.

The Ministry further claims that the Advisory Board is a safeguard against abuse under the ISA. The protection accorded by the Advisory Board is spurious, if not a farce. Several of us have appeared before such a board and can confirm that the board did not examine witnesses and evidence against the detainee. In 1987, appearances before the board lasted not more than a few minutes each. Furthermore, detainees were discouraged from appearing before the board by ISD officers. Many were advised that appearing before the board would jeopardise their chances of early release.

Singapore has many existing laws that will deal with acts of terrorism. We have the Penal Code, the Sedition Act, Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, Vandalism Act and after 9/11, the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act and the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act. These laws provide severe punishments which include death, life imprisonment and caning.

In 1991, then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, “Singapore will seriously consider abolishing the Internal Security Act if Malaysia were to do so”. He made this response to seven Malaysian journalists in his office when asked why the ISA was still needed in Singapore even though the Communist Party of Malaya no longer posed a threat. (ST 3.2.1991.) Now that Malaysia is repealing the ISA, we call upon PM Lee Hsien Loong to translate his 1991 statement into reality and keep in step with the aspirations of our people for a mature and functioning democracy. Indefinite detention without trial is an affront to the human rights of citizens and an assault on our justice system.

Dated this 19th day of September 2011.

Dr Lim Hock Siew

Dr Poh Soo Kai

Said Zahari

Lee Tee Tong

Loh Miaw Gong

Chng Min Oh @ Chuang Men-Hu

Tan Sin alias Tan Seng Hin

Toh Ching Kee

Koh Kay Yew

Vincent Cheng Kim Chuan

Teo Soh Lung

Yap Hon Ngian

Tan Tee Seng

Low Yit Leng

Wong Souk Yee

Tang Fong Har

Former detainees call for ISA’s abolition, Rachel Chang, Straits Times, 20 Sept 2011

Statement signed by 16 says safeguards against abuse are spurious

A GROUP of 16 former detainees has called for Singapore’s Internal Security Act (ISA) to be abolished, arguing that the safeguards which prevent its abuse are spurious.

The 16 signatories of the statement include Barisan Sosialis members Lim Hock Siew and Poh Soo Kai, who were detained for close to 20 years each.

They called the ISA’s effect on Singapore society ‘crippling and pernicious’.

Their statement comes after Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak announced plans last Thursday to repeal Malaysia’s ISA and replace it with terrorism-specific laws.

The former detainees called for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to ‘translate his 1991 statement into reality and keep in step with the aspirations of our people for a mature and functioning democracy’. In 1991, then Deputy Prime Minister Lee told Malaysian journalists that Singapore would ‘seriously consider’ abolishing its ISA if Malaysia were to do so.

However, Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said last Friday the Republic would not scrap its ISA as it remained ‘relevant and crucial’ as a measure of last resort to keep the country safe and secure.

The MHA said while the ISA in both countries shared the same roots, the ISA in Singapore has evolved and is now different from that in Malaysia.

The former detainees took issue with two points the MHA made. The MHA said that a person arrested under the ISA in Singapore may be held in custody for up to 30 days after which an Order of Detention or Restriction Order must be issued, or else the person must be released unconditionally. In Malaysia, the period of custody is up to 60 days.

The former detainees called this comparison ‘irrelevant’, because political detainees in Singapore have been imprisoned for periods ‘which far exceed those in Malaysia’.

They pointed to leftist leaders detained under Operation Cold Store in 1963: Dr Chia Thye Poh was detained for 26 years, Dr Lim Hock Siew for 20 years, Mr Lee Tee Tong for 18 years, and Dr Poh Soo Kai and Mr Said Zahari for 17 years.

Apart from Dr Chia, who resides in Europe, the rest signed the statement.

The MHA also noted Singapore’s ‘additional safeguard’ to prevent misuse of the ISA. The President has, since 1991, the power to veto the Government’s decision to detain someone if the ISA Advisory Board, chaired by a Supreme Court judge, recommends his release.

‘The protection accorded by the Advisory Board is spurious, if not a farce,’ countered the former detainees.

Seven of the signatories were detained in 1987 for an alleged Marxist conspiracy – Ms Teo Soh Lung, Mr Vincent Cheng, Ms Low Yit Leng, Mr Yap Hon Ngian, Mr Tan Tee Seng, Ms Wong Souk Yee and Ms Tang Fong Har. The remaining five signatories are Madam Loh Miaw Gong, Mr Chng Min Oh, Mr Tan Sin, Mr Toh Ching Kee and Mr Koh Kay Yew.

Those among them who appeared before the Advisory Board in 1987 said that the board did not examine witnesses or evidence against the detainee.

‘In 1987, appearances before the board lasted not more than a few minutes each,’ said the statement. ‘Furthermore, detainees were discouraged from appearing before the board by Internal Security Department officers. Many were advised that appearing before the board would jeopardise their chances of early release.’

The statement also argued that Singapore has other laws that deal with acts of terrorism, such as the Sedition Act, the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act, and the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act. ‘Indefinite detention without trial is an affront to the human rights of citizens and an assault on our justice system,’ the detainees said.

Separately, former presidential candidate Tan Jee Say yesterday called for the ISA’s abolishment and the formation of an independent Commission of Inquiry to look into past detentions, which some believe were politically motivated.

ISA: Judicial review should replace advisory board, Peter Cuthbert Low, Straits Times Forum, 23 Sept 2011

I REFER to Wednesday’s editorial (‘Laws that evolve with the times’) concerning the ongoing public debate on the Internal Security Act (ISA) and, in particular, about a role for judicial scrutiny.

Under current legislation, scrutiny of ISA detentions and releases is undertaken by an advisory board headed by a Supreme Court judge who is assisted by two members appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice.

The Government claims that the advisory board is a safeguard to prevent misuse of the ISA. Having appeared in the late 1980s before an advisory board, chaired by a now retired Supreme Court judge, as a lawyer for ISA detainees Vincent Cheng and Chng Suan Tze, and having recently reviewed the existing rules concerning the advisory board, I have my reservations as to whether the board is an effective safeguard against misuse of the ISA.

In the absence of a criminal trial, a more sufficient safeguard is a judicial review of government detentions.

Indeed, that was precisely the view the Court of Appeal pronounced when

it ordered the release of my client Ms Chng, and three other detainees, one of whom was Ms Teo Soh Lung.

The four had challenged their detentions by way of judicial review.

Alas, the Government overruled the highest judicial tribunal of the land, did away with judicial review and, for good measure, got rid of Privy Council appeals.

The Government allowed judicial review only for cases where it had made procedural mistakes in detaining a person.

However, a forensic victory grounded on procedural mistakes can only be Pyrrhic; such a win in the courts would only result in re-arrest, as was the case of my client Ms Teo and the other two who challenged their detentions.

And, as was the case in earlier years, of Dr Lim Hock Siew and four other detainees.

The bottom line must be that if the Government believes there is a need for safeguards against misuse of the ISA, judicial review should be reinstated.

As the Court of Appeal said in its landmark decision: ‘…All power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power’.

Govt rebuts ex-ISA detainees’ statement, Straits Times, 24 Sept 2011

THE Government yesterday rebutted a joint statement by 16 former Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees who took issue with the length of detention under the ISA and the process of the ISA Advisory Board.

The group had, on Monday, issued the statement in which they welcomed Malaysia’s decision to repeal its ISA and called on Singapore to do the same.

They had referred to ISA detainees as ‘political detainees’.

Yesterday, the Home Affairs Ministry said the 16 had been detained for their involvement in ‘subversive activities which posed a threat to national security’.

They ‘were not detained for their political beliefs’, the ministry said in a three-page statement.

The 16 were detained between the 1960s and the 1980s.

They include leftist leaders held under Operation Cold Store in 1963, such as Dr Lim Hock Siew, Dr Poh Soo Kai and Mr Said Zahari, as well as those detained in 1987 for an alleged Marxist conspiracy.

The ministry said nine of them were ‘actively involved in Communist United Front activities in support of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), which was committed to the violent overthrow of the constitutionally-elected governments in Singapore and Malaysia’.

It added: ‘They infiltrated legally-established organisations like trade unions and student associations and instigated illegal strikes and demonstrations to cause mayhem and civil strife, to complement the CPM’s armed revolution.’

The statement said one of the nine gave medical aid to a ‘CPM saboteur’ in 1974.

Back in 1975, the Government had identified him as Barisan Sosialis member Poh Soo Kai who was a medical doctor.

The saboteur, said the statement, was hiding in Malaysia after a bomb he was carrying for an attack in Singapore exploded prematurely when he was travelling along Still Road, injuring him and killing two others.

The security situation at the time was ‘volatile and dangerous’. New CPM organisations were formed in the 1970s to ‘carry out sabotage, assassinations and other acts of violence’, following the party’s call in 1968 for a return to armed struggle, the ministry added.

Turning to the other seven former detainees, it said they were, in the 1980s, ‘involved in a Marxist plot to subvert and destabilise Singapore’.

‘The plot was part of the CPM’s renewed efforts to rebuild the united front by penetrating and manipulating legally-established organisations.

‘Three of them infiltrated and manipulated several religious organisations and, exploiting the religious cover, pursued activities towards subversive ends.

‘They worked with others, including leftist elements from the CPM era, to build a covert network to promote a Marxist agenda, using united front activities to control and influence organisations engaged in religious and social activism.’

The statement noted that five of these former detainees swore statutory declarations concerning their past activities.

Some of the 1987 detainees, however, claimed later they made the declarations after being threatened.

The ministry’s statement went on to address specific points made by the group.

The former detainees had pointed out that the length of ISA detentions in Singapore ‘far exceed those in Malaysia’.

The ministry said that ‘whether a person’s detention is extended depends on whether he still poses a security threat’. Those who refused to renounce violence were detained longer, it added.

The statement also rejected as ‘baseless and unwarranted’ the former detainees’ allegation that ‘the protection accorded by the ISA Advisory Board is spurious, if not a farce’.

The ministry said the Board is chaired by a Supreme Court judge and scrutinises every detention case to satisfy itself that there are valid security grounds for detention. Its members are appointed by the President and the Board ‘enjoys the immunities and powers of a court of law’.

‘It examines representations from detainees and their legal counsel, studies the evidence including classified intelligence, and examines witnesses including senior Internal Security Department (ISD) officers when it deems necessary.’

The ministry added that these safeguards against the abuse of the ISA were ‘further enhanced’ in 1991, when the law was changed to allow the President to veto any government decision to detain a person against the recommendation of the Advisory Board.

‘Indeed, the Board has on several occasions made independent recommendations for the early release of detainees, including three of the 16 ex-detainees,’ the ministry disclosed, without naming the trio.

The statement, however, did not respond to the allegation made by the 16 that ‘detainees were discouraged from appearing before the Board by ISD officers’ and that many were told it would ‘jeopardise their chances of early release’.

The ministry concluded its statement by reiterating that the ISA remains relevant and necessary today in Singapore, a small country ‘open to external influences and located in a turbulent region’.

It said the threats to Singapore’s national security have evolved over the years, but have not gone away.

‘In the CPM era, armed communist insurgencies, transnationally motivated and supported, infected countries throughout the region.

‘The communist threat was not just violent insurgency but also the systematic subversion of the political arena to foment civil strife and de-stabilise the country,’ it said.

Singapore, it added, had also faced non-Communist threats, such as cases of espionage, subversive attempts by foreign powers or agencies, as well as racial and religious extremism.

‘Today, we face the threat of jihadist terrorism, not only from Al-Qaeda-linked clandestine groups like the Jemaah Islamiah but also from self-radicalised individuals,’ it said.

The use of the ISA has evolved with changing circumstances, vulnerability and risk tolerance, it said.

In a reference to the impending repeal of the ISA in Malaysia, the ministry said that it ‘monitors developments in the laws and systems of other countries’.

But it added that the Government ultimately has to decide ‘based on what is prudent and necessary in Singapore’s context and is in Singapore’s best interests’.

‘As an instrument of last resort, the ISA has enabled us to counter serious security threats, protect our people, and preserve our racial harmony and social cohesion.

It remains relevant and necessary in today’s evolving security environment, for keeping Singapore safe and secure,’ the statement concluded.

Singapore ‘faces pressure to repeal ISA’, Andrea Ong, Sunday Times, 25 Sept 2011

Malaysian opposition MP Tian Chua believes the Singapore Government is under ‘tremendous pressure’ to follow in Malaysia’s footsteps in repealing the Internal Security Act (ISA), he said at a forum here yesterday.

He cited two key factors: a less fearful electorate arising from the evolution of the democratic process, and historical links between both countries’ uses of the ISA.

Mr Chua, who was detained for two years from 2001 under Malaysia’s ISA, was speaking at a forum organised by the Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD) political association.

‘The ISA experience through these 40 years in Malaysia and Singapore is a process of the nation overcoming our own fears and phobias,’ said Mr Chua, 47, a Parti Keadilan Rakyat MP.

On democracy in the region, he said Singapore and Malaysia used to practise ‘Asian-style democracy’ where the state provided economic success and citizens allowed it to have near-total control.

That was the environment which produced the ISA, he said.

Now, however, ruling parties have to reform and fulfil the people’s demands if they want to stay in power, he said. In Malaysia, the awakened electorate has become less fearful as more dare to speak up. He said: ‘The discourse has changed. I’m not surprised that finally (Malaysian Prime Minister) Najib (Razak) had to stand up.’

Singapore and Malaysia’s uses of the ISA have also been ‘interlinked’, he said. The ISA in both countries has roots in the 1948 Emergency Regulations passed by the colonial government to fight communists.

Said Mr Chua: ‘When the Malaysian regime acknowledged the ISA is anti-democratic… Singapore cannot resist. It will have to react, maybe faster than we can imagine.’

The Singapore Government has said it will not repeal the ISA as it ‘continues to be relevant and crucial as a measure of last resort’ to keep the country safe and secure, it said in a statement last week.

It also said Singapore’s ISA has evolved and is now different from Malaysia’s in having additional safeguards to prevent its misuse.

Another speaker was Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) vice-chairman Vincent Cheng, a former ISA detainee and one of 16 signatories of a recent statement calling for the ISA to be abolished.

He spoke of his detention in 1987 as part of an alleged Marxist conspiracy and said he had been beaten, placed in a cold room, and forced into a false confession.

The two other speakers at the forum, attended by about 50 people, were Cambodian MP and activist Mu Sochua and blogger Alex Au.

Mr Au said human rights and the rule of law must be in place before democracy can take root.

SFD executive director James Gomez yesterday announced that the association wants to explore the possibility of forming a coalition of political parties, non-governmental organisations and individuals to champion the abolishment of the ISA here.

The forum, which was meant to be held at a Singapore Human Resources Institute (SHRI) training room at The Verge shopping mall, had to be moved to Public House in Circular Road at the last minute.

Organiser and SFD executive secretary Martyn See said that was because SHRI e-mailed him on Friday to cancel his booking of the training room. He wants a refund of the $600 booking fee he paid.

SHRI executive director David Ang, 64, said Mr See did not provide his organisation’s name or the forum’s subject matter when he booked the room. SHRI’s Constitution states that it is not allowed to hold events of a political nature, Mr Ang added. – ST

Absurd inconsistencies in SHRI’s administerial processes

Singaporean NGOs demand repeal of ISA, Comment, Dr James Gomez, Malaysiakini

In an ever-increasing sign that political events either side of the causeway are impacting both its neighbours, Malaysia’s recent announcement that it will soon repeal the notorious ISA has renewed calls for its abolition in Singapore.

Soon after news of the historic announcement in Malaysia on Sept 15 became public, the online world in Singapore ignited with chatter about doing away with the ISA.

Independent news websites, blogs and Facebook users almost immediately began circulating a Straits Times report from Feb 3, 1991 where then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (left), during a visit by Malaysian journalists, was reported to have said “Singapore will seriously consider abolishing the Internal Security Act if Malaysia were to do so”.

Opposition parties and civil society groups joined the early online chatter with a chorus of statements.

The Singapore Democratic Party highlighted the need to do away with the ISA in Singapore. The Reform Party and Workers’ Party, while identifying their opposition to the ISA, added they will be agreeable for suitable laws to deal with terrorism acts.

Human rights groups MARUAH and Think Centre, which are gazetted as political associations in Singapore, each also detailed its opposition to the ISA.

As if to cull the momentum of these calls to abolish the ISA in Singapore, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a statement the next day insisting that the ISA is still “crucial and relevant” for the city-state.

Citing that Malaysia and Singapore were different, the Home Affairs Ministry went on to paint a picture that the ISA in the city-state has more safeguards against abuse and used only sparingly.

A few days after the government announcement saw an op-ed by a Singapore Management University academic, Eugene Tan, appear in the Today newspaper on Sept 19. His suggestion was to introduce more judicial review mechanisms so that the PAP government can better “sell” the ISA to Singaporeans.

Fuelling momentum for its abolishing

This only has sparked more criticism of Singapore’s ISA online and has served to fuel the momentum for its abolishing.

With not even a week passing since Malaysia announcement, a group of 16 Singaporean ex-ISA detainees, including Said Zahari (right), issued a joint statement questioning the “safeguards” of the Singaporean ISA legislation.

They highlighted that while there maybe be technical differences in the ISA legislation on both sides of the causeway, in Singapore detainees have generally been held captive without trial for much longer periods of time, some of which running into the decades.

This volume of public disagreement against the PAP government on ISA matters comes on the back of a recent election where the ruling party scored a historic record low popular vote of 60.1 percent.

Singaporeans having to endure a host of ineffective policies related to immigration, housing, transport and the cost of living coupled with limited civil liberties now openly reject and speak up against unpopular PAP policies.

Hence, the crux of the matter is not so much “selling” ISA to Singaporeans, it is whether Singaporeans want to “buy” the ISA and all the other restrictions on civil liberties that is out of synch with global standards and not tolerated by an emboldened citizenry.

Although, to date these remain just calls, the Malaysian announcement can be expected to serve as a yardstick, against which activists in Singapore will increasingly place their calls for its abolishing.

But the Singaporean effort against the ISA can only keep the momentum going if the various groups that are speaking out against the ISA on a individual basis are willing to come together to form a coalition against this archaic law.

This is important in order to put pressure on the PAP government, otherwise it can simply ignore such pleas. For instance, government officials have yet to respond to a request by political NGO Singaporeans For Democracy to meet current ISA detainees to evaluate their detention conditions.

Although the request was sent in September, a week before the Malaysian announcement, there is still no news.

Whatever the outcome of the calls to abolish the ISA in Singapore, political forces on both side of the causeway are watching each other and the likely developments that will impact politics in both countries.

If the recent electoral results in Singapore are anything to go by, Umno might be concerned that it needs to shore its political credibility before the next polls. Announcing the removal of restrictions on civil liberties is just one way, but it remains to be seen if it will work.

Dr James Gomez is a Singaporean academic and manages an independent consulting initiative – The GOMEZ Centre

See here for the statement by the former detainees calling for a commission of inquiry.

ISA detentions: Govt rejects call for inquiry
Straits Times, 30 Sept 2011

THE Government yesterday rejected a call by 16 former detainees for a commission of inquiry to investigate their detentions under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

The rejection, in a statement from the Home Affairs Ministry, came a day after the 16 said in a statement of their own that an independent commission should examine if allegations against them and all former ISA detainees were justified.

The 16 were detained in different waves of arrests between the 1960s and the 1980s.

In its response, the ministry said that the subversion and violence of the Communist insurgency from the 1940s to the 1970s are a historical reality.

It added that the Government’s actions against the Marxist plot in the late 1980s had been fully explained and justified at the time, and extensively debated in Parliament.

‘These actual situations and events which were real threats to Singapore’s security cannot simply be dismissed as ‘rhetoric’, as the ex-detainees now try to do,’ the statement said.

‘The detentions under the ISA were made for valid security reasons and properly dealt with according to the law. Every case was reviewed at that time by the Advisory Board chaired by a Supreme Court judge.

‘The Government sees no reason to conduct a review now, more than 20 years after the event, via a commission of inquiry.’

In their statement on Wednesday calling for a commission of inquiry, the 16 said that recent publications, memoirs and panel discussions by historians and former detainees gave accounts different from the official narrative on the events surrounding their arrests.

In an earlier statement, on Sept 23, the ministry noted that the 16 were detained for their involvement in subversive activities which posed a threat to national security and not for their political beliefs.

The nine who were detained before the 1980s were actively involved in Communist United Front activities in support of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), which sought to overthrow the governments of Singapore and Malaysia.

The seven detained in the 1980s were involved in a Marxist plot that was part of the CPM’s renewed efforts to rebuild the united front by penetrating and manipulating legally established organisations.

The Government has maintained that Singapore will not scrap the ISA as it remained ‘relevant and crucial’ as a measure of last resort to keep the country safe and secure.

[original link]

[original link]

[original link]

“I welcome Alan Shadrake’s release. It is regrettable that Mr Shadrake served time in jail for expressing his personal views on the Singaporean legal system. The British Government continues to call on all countries, including Singapore, to recognise the right to the freedom of expression.” – Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne

British author deported by Singapore
Bernice Han, AFP, 10 July 2011

Alan and I at the book launch the night before he was arrested on 18th July 2010. Click on photo to learn more about Alan's ordeal at the hands of Singapore authorities

A British author who spent five weeks in a Singapore prison for contempt after publishing a book questioning executions in the city-state has been deported to London.

Alan Shadrake, 76, told AFP by mobile phone from Changi Airport before boarding a Singapore Airlines plane on Saturday that he was in good health and “very, very happy” to be free again.

“I am now waiting for take-off and I will be at Heathrow (airport),” said the freelance journalist, whose book “Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock” drew ire from the corridors of power in the former British colony.

Shadrake said he had no regrets for writing the book, which is now on its second edition, and expected family members to welcome him in London after his more than 13-hour flight.

“It’s very tiring being locked up. I just need to get back to my exercise routine,” said the writer, who was deported nearly a year after he was arrested while visiting Singapore to launch the book.

It includes a profile of Darshan Singh, the former chief executioner at Changi Prison, located close to the airport from where Shadrake was deported.

According to the book, Singh hanged around 1,000 men and women including foreigners from 1959 until he retired in 2006.

It also features interviews with human rights activists, lawyers and former police officers, and alleges that some foreigners may have been spared from the gallows as a result of diplomatic and trade considerations.

Singapore executes murderers and drug traffickers by hanging, a controversial method of punishment dating back to British rule, and insists harsh penalties help keep its crime rates low.

Shadrake went to jail on June 1 after losing his appeal against a six-week sentence, the toughest ever imposed in Singapore for contempt of court.

He was ordered to serve an extra two weeks behind bars as he could not pay the Sg$20,000 ($16,000) fine that accompanied his jail term.

But his lawyer M. Ravi said Shadrake, who turns 77 next month and had health problems during his trial, was released early on account of good behaviour.

“He is glad that the whole thing is over,” the lawyer told AFP.

A spokesman from the British High Commission said it was aware of Shadrake’s release and deportation but declined to comment further.

The spokesman said the embassy provided Shadrake with all the necessary consular assistance.

Lance Lattig, human rights group Amnesty International’s researcher on Southeast Asia, said Singapore should have dropped all charges against Shadrake.

“They shouldn’t have prosecuted him in the first place,” Lattig said.

Former political detainee and lawyer Tan Jing Quee (above) died on Tuesday after a five-year battle with cancer.

FORMER political detainee and lawyer Tan Jing Quee (above), arrested in 1963 under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for alleged pro-communist activities, died on Tuesday after a five-year battle with cancer.

Mr Tan, who contested the 1963 election as a Barisan Sosialis candidate and lost to the late S. Rajaratnam in Kampong Glam by 220 votes, was 72.

Released from detention in 1966, he left to study law in London. Returning in 1970, he set up the firm Jing Quee & Chin Joo with a fellow detainee, leftist unionist Lim Chin Joo, in 1973.

He was arrested again and detained for about three months in February 1977 under the ISA for allegedly joining a group to revive pro-communist activities here.

But Mr Tan, who researched, wrote and edited books on Singapore’s leftists in recent years, always maintained he was not involved in Communist United Front activities.

He was most recently a contributor and editor of The May 13 Generation, a book of essays on the Chinese middle school student movement in the 1950s. It was launched here last month.

His wife of 40 years, Mrs Rosemary Tan, 65, said yesterday that her husband, who had prostate cancer and was recovering from an operation to remove a tumour in his spine, was in Kuala Lumpur and Penang last month to promote the book with its two other editors, Dr Tan Kok Chiang and Dr Hong Lysa.

He was not well after returning and was admitted to Singapore General Hospital on May 31, dying a fortnight later.

Mr Tan was a leader of the University Socialist Club in the early 1960s, while a student at the University of Malaya in Singapore. He later worked as secretary of the now-defunct Singapore Business Houses Employees Union.

Mr Tan and Mr Lim – younger brother of the late PAP founding leader Lim Chin Siong, who broke away to form the Barisan Sosialis in 1961 – retired from their law firm about 10 years ago.

Mr Lim, 73, described his friend of nearly 40 years as a man ‘dedicated to the cause of improving the lot of Singaporeans, not someone who would create civil disorder and destabilise the country’.

Mrs Tan also said allegations of his involvement in Communist United Front activities were untrue: ‘He was a brave man who fought for the rights of the people and who loved his family and friends.’

The couple have three grown children. His wake is being held at his home at 3, Coronation Walk until tomorrow. His body will be cremated at Mandai Crematorium on Saturday at 1.30pm. – ST

Related links:

ISA Detainee by Tan Jing Quee

For Chia Thye Poh (after 32 years of political detention) by Tan Jing Quee

The Fajar Generation

Our Thoughts Are Free denied a place in the sun

May 13 generation shares its stories
By Leong Weng Kam, Senior Writer, Straits Times, 19 June 2011

Former Singapore political detainee Tan Jing Quee, who was battling cancer, was promoting his latest book up to the last days of his life.

He had been across the Causeway last month, in Kuala Lumpur and Penang, to launch The May 13 Generation, an essay collection on the Chinese middle school student movement in Singapore in the 1950s, which he co-edited.

Mr Tan, 72, returned home ill on May 25, and was admitted to Singapore General Hospital a week later. He died just five days ago.

The retired lawyer and former Barisan Sosialis politician, detained under the Internal Security Act for alleged pro-communist activities soon after his failed bid at the 1963 General Election, was cremated at Mandai Crematorium yesterday.

Released in 1966, he went to London to study law and returned in 1970 to practise till he retired about 10 years ago.

His two co-editors – Professor Emeritus Tan Kok Chiang, 74, a former Chinese middle school student leader; and Dr Hong Lysa, 58, a historian – were also at the book launches in Malaysia.

Recalling their trip, Prof Tan who now lives in Ontario, Canada, said: ‘I could see Jing Quee feeling the pressure of long distance travel. But his spirits were very high, meeting friends and comrades whom he had not seen for a while.’

Mr Tan’s wife, Rosemary, 65, said her husband of 40 years had wanted to go on the journey very much, to meet his many old friends in Malaysia, including former politician Lim Kean Chye, as well as to launch the book which took him two years to do.

In an interview he gave to The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao following the book’s earlier launch in Singapore, also last month, he said the idea for the collection came when he was translating the Chinese novel Ju Lang (Mighty Wave), by leftist writer Lim Kim Chuan, into English two years ago.

Helping him with the translation was Dr Hong and another former political detainee and Barisan MP, Madam Loh Miao Gong, 76, who was arrested after the 1963 polls for alleged pro-communist activities.

Ju Lang, set in Singapore in the 1950s, was first published in Chinese in 2004 to mark the 50th anniversary of the mass anti-colonial movement started after Chinese middle school students had clashed with riot policemen.

On May 13, 1954, students clashed with riot policemen while on their way to hand a petition for exemption from conscription to the Governor. -- ST FILE PHOTOS

The students were on their way to hand their petition for exemption from conscription to the then Singapore Governor at the former Government House, now the Istana, on May 13, 1954.

The novel’s English translation was launched as a companion volume to The May 13 Generation, which also has a Chinese edition.

‘Halfway through our translation, we felt a novel may not appeal to younger readers and it may not be able to highlight the significance of the historical event. So we started to invite scholars and those involved in the May 13 incident to write essays and their recollections,’ Mr Tan recalled during the interview last month before his death.

He had been actively researching, writing and editing books on Singapore’s leftist history for the past 10 years.

His last effort was The May 13 Generation, comprising 15 essays which include those on the arts in the 1950s. The preface, introduction and first four chapters were written by Mr Tan, Dr Hong and researcher Khe Su Lin.

In their essays, they gave the social and political background, examined the historical framework and explained the context of the period in which the Chinese middle school student movement was inspired and later grew.

The students formed a united, open and legal movement, the Singapore Chinese Middle School Students’ Union (SCMSSU), a year after the May 13 incident but it was banned barely a year later by the colonial government for engaging in pro-communist activities.

Former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, a young Cambridge-trained lawyer then, was SCMSSU’s legal counsel.

It was through the students that Mr Lee got to know young Chinese-educated leftist trade unionists like Fong Swee Suan and rural dwellers’ association leaders such as Chan Chiaw Thor. Together with other like-minded people, including several of Mr Lee’s English-educated friends, they secured a mass base for a political party and formed the People’s Action Party (PAP) in November 1954.

It was student support that helped the PAP win the municipal and legislative elections in the 1950s, leading to its landslide election victory in 1959 when it became the ruling party.

Many scholars have said that PAP and the Singapore story would have turned out quite differently if not for the May 13 incident.

Former leftists and alternative history writers often said the role and significance of the student movement were insufficiently told in the dominant, official narrative.

‘This volume, The May 13 Generation, marks the breaking of that silence,’ said Prof Tan, who was SCMSSU’s English secretary when he was a Chung Cheng High student in the 1950s.

Prof Tan, a graduate of the former Nanyang University in 1960 who later left for his postgraduate studies overseas, is among those who have broken their silence. He wrote about his involvement in the student movement for the first time after nearly 60 years in the chapter, My Story, in the book.

Also sharing her story for the first time is Madam Loh, who was among the arrested students when the colonial government cracked down on them on Oct 10, 1956. Her chapter is entitled The Two Faces Of Men In White.

Other contributors include retired lawyer Lim Chin Joo and former Barisan MP Lim Huan Boon.

‘The telling of the story of the Chinese middle school students of the 1950s now begins,’ said Prof Tan.

The May 13 Generation and the English translation of Mighty Wave are available at Select Books for $34.25 and $28.46 each respectively. – ST

Photo credit: Rizal

Alan and I at the book launch a day before he was arrested on 18th July 2010.

Singapore jails UK author for ‘insulting book’
Philip Lim, AFP, 27 May 2011

Singapore’s highest court on Friday ordered a defiant 76-year-old British author to serve six weeks in jail for contempt after he published a book denouncing judicial hangings in the city-state.

Photo: Roslan Rahman/AFP

Alan Shadrake, a freelance journalist and author of “Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock”, laughed and joked with reporters after the Court of Appeal upheld a prison term and fine imposed in November.

“I expected the decision. I am very sorry for Singapore. I’m not sorry for myself,” he said.

Shadrake was granted a request to start his jail term on Wednesday after he undergoes a medical test. He said doctors had recently found a tumour on his face. He is also receiving treatment for polyps in his colon.

He said he would serve an extra two weeks in jail because he could not afford to pay a Sg$20,000 ($16,150) fine imposed on top of the prison term.

But Singapore jail terms are often reduced by a third for good behaviour.

Shadrake had been on bail while seeking to reverse a High Court ruling in November that found him guilty of “scandalising” the judiciary and imposed the prison term and fine.

“We affirm the sentence imposed by the judge,” Justice Andrew Phang of the three-member Court of Appeal panel said Friday.

There was no immediate comment from the British embassy.

When he launched his appeal, Shadrake described the charges as “bloody nonsense” and said he was ready to go to jail.

Shadrake’s jail term was the stiffest sentence ever imposed in Singapore for contempt and was denounced by international human rights groups campaigning for an end to executions and urging greater freedom of expression in the country.

Phil Robertson, deputy director for Asia of campaign group Human Rights Watch, said the court of appeal’s decision was “a devastating blow to free speech in Singapore.”

“It is shameful. More broadly, until the government releases its iron grip on basic freedoms, the Singaporean people will remain all the poorer for it,” he told AFP from Bangkok.

Shadrake said last week that the second edition of his book was already on sale in Australia and was due to be launched in Britain on June 1.

His book includes a profile of Darshan Singh, the former chief executioner at Singapore’s Changi Prison who, according to the author, hanged around 1,000 men and women including foreigners from 1959 until he retired in 2006.

Singapore law requires death by hanging for convicted murderers and drug traffickers, a mode of execution dating back to British colonial rule.

Shadrake’s book features interviews with human rights activists, lawyers and former police officers, and alleges that some cases involving foreigners may have been influenced by diplomatic and trade considerations.

He was arrested by Singapore police in July while visiting the city to launch the first edition of his book, first published in neighbouring Malaysia.

Singapore law provides that “a person commits the offence of scandalising the court if he makes statements which have an inherent tendency to interfere with the administration of justice,” according to a court press statement explaining the case.

Photo: Roslan Rahman/AFP

Author’s sentence for contempt of court upheld
Selina Lum, Straits Times, 28 May 2011

THE six weeks’ jail and $20,000 fine handed down to British author Alan Shadrake, 76, stays.

The Court of Appeal yesterday upheld the sentence meted out on him by the High Court in November last year, after 11 of 14 identified passages in his book on capital punishment in Singapore were found to be in contempt of court.

Dismissing the author’s appeal against his conviction, the appeal court said: ‘While the appellant is free to engage in the debate for or against capital punishment, he is not free to deliberately and systematically scandalise the courts in attempting to substantiate his case against capital punishment.’

The appeal court comprised Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang, Justice Lai Siu Chiu and Justice Philip Pillai.

Shadrake, through his lawyer M. Ravi, asked to start his jail term next Wednesday, as he wants to go for a medical check-up.

The request was granted.

Shadrake later told reporters he would not be able to pay the fine, which means he will spend another two weeks in jail.

While the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s sentence, it differed slightly on which passages in Shadrake’s book, Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice In The Dock, were contemptuous.

Last year, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) went to the High Court to commit Shadrake for contempt of court on the grounds that 14 passages in his book about the death penalty here had scandalised the judiciary.

The AGC contended that it was a baseless broadside for the author to allege that the Singapore courts bowed to pressure from foreign governments, favoured the rich and privileged and were used as a tool by the ruling party to muzzle political dissent.

The High Court found 11 of the 14 passages in contempt and dealt Shadrake the jail term and fine, the heaviest punishment handed down here for contempt of court.

The Court of Appeal, however, found only nine of the 11 passages in contempt.

One it thought was not in contempt was the reference to German citizen Julia Bohl, whose drug-trafficking charge was reduced to a non-capital offence; the other passage was the statement that the ruling party here often sues its opponents on ‘trumped-up defamation charges’.

However, the Court of Appeal said Shadrake’s conduct still merited a substantial jail term, given that this was ‘still the worst case of scandalising contempt’ that had come before the courts here.

After the hearing, Shadrake walked out of court flashing his usual V for victory sign.

He said: ‘They gave me what I expected. I expected the results.’

Of his request to defer his jail term by a few days, he said he wanted to see his cardiologist; he is taking six types of medication daily for a heart condition. He added that he also has a benign tumour on his face.

The sprightly man said he did not regret writing the book, although he admitted having made some errors, which have been corrected in the revised edition that hit bookstores in Australia two weeks ago.

He said: ‘This sentence would boost sales. I couldn’t buy this kind of publicity.’

British author loses appeal
Shaffiq Alkhatib, TODAY, 28 May 2011

He had sought to overturn his conviction and sentence for contempt of court but the Court of Appeal rejected British author and freelance journalist Alan Shadrake’s appeal yesterday.

Shadrake, 76, had been convicted last year after 11 passages in his book, Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock, were found to have undermined the integrity of Singapore’s judicial system.

He was sentenced to six weeks in jail and fined S$20,000 on Nov 16 last year – the stiffest sentence to date imposed for contempt of court.

Delivering the decision of the three-judge Court of Appeal, Justice Andrew Phang said that they now find that two of the 11 statements were not contemptuous.

But he stressed that this was still the “worst case of scandalising contempt” that had come before the Singapore courts and Shadrake’s conduct, therefore, “merited a substantial custodial sentence”.

Shadrake will begin serving his jail sentence next Wednesday.

His lawyer, Mr M Ravi, told the court that the Briton – who has heart problems – intends to go for a medical check-up before surrendering to the authorities by 9am that day.

Shadrake told reporters outside the Supreme Court he had expected the outcome and has no regrets writing the book, although he had made some errors which have been rectified.

“I made the decision, I did it, and I’ve taken the responsibility for what I’ve done. If they don’t like it, I don’t care,” he said.

Shadrake will also be writing about his personal experience in the Singapore courts for the book’s later editions.

He added that he is unable to pay the S$20,000 fine and will serve an additional two weeks behind bars.

In the meantime, Shadrake is also under investigation for criminal defamation. If convicted, he could be jailed up to two years and fined.

The question that Singaporeans must ask is not who is appointed to which ministry but rather what policies will emanate from these new ministries.

If there is a lesson in this elections for the PAP it is that the people are fed-up with the it’s policies on the cost of living, foreign workers, housing, transportation, education, etc. Shifting portfolios among ministers without addressing these policies only signals that the Government is interested in cosmetic changes.

For example, if Mr Khaw Boon Wan who replaces Mr Mah Bow Tan continues with the Ministry of National Development’s policy of not revealing the real costs of constructing HDB flats, Singaporeans will still be in the dark as to how much their flats really cost and how much profit the Government is making from HDB sales.

Without this transparency, we cannot make sound policies that guide the pricing of HDB flats. If this is the case, whether it is Minister Khaw or Minister Mah is of no benefit to Singaporeans.

Therefore, we look forward to each minister coming out over the next days and weeks to clearly articulate the new policies and policy initiatives which we expect to be significantly different from their predecessors. Otherwise, it is a clear message that it is politics-as-usual from this Government.

Also, it is noted that ministers who have performed poorly in the previous Government have been retained and given another ministry. For example, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan who managed the Youth Olympic Games poorly and was heavily criticised for his insensitive remarks about the poor, is now given the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources.

And former Environment Minister Mr Yaacob Ibrahim who could not get a grip of the seriousness of the floods that caused so much damage to Singapore now assumes the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts without conclusively dealing with the flood problem .

How will the performance and effectiveness of the Government be raised with such lateral movement?

In addition, we still have Ministers who have been assigned to the Prime Minister’s Office without a portfolio (Mr Lim Swee Say and Mr S Iswaran). Exactly what do these ministers do?

Another unexplained set of appointments are the second ministers. What exactly are their roles? How do they assist the ministers? How are their jobs different from the ministers of state?

PM Lee Hsien Loong must explain to the people why he has made these appointments and how these posts help in the more effective governing of Singapore.

Finally, if PM Lee is genuinely contrite and is determined to lead a government that listens to the people, then he will announce an across-the-board reduction in the Ministers’ salaries. The astronomical wages that the Ministers draw, despite the poor performance of the last government, have caused much anger among Singaporeans.

The SDP has recommended that the PM’s salary be reduced to $60,000 a month and the ministers’ wages follow accordingly.

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

http://yoursdp.org Dr Chee Soon Juan addressed about 350 members and volunteers at the SDP’s thank-you dinner on 14 May 11. He noted that the SDP had become a party of professionals and thinkers. He also called on everyone to be do-ers

Text of speech

The following was published in Teo Soh Lung’s facebook group page. Soh Lung was the SDP’s candidate for Yuhua SMC in GE2011. She is also an ex-ISA detainee and recounts her experiences in her book.

Civil disobedience and the SDP
Teo Soh Lung, 18 May 2011

At last Saturday’s SDP dinner to thank volunteers, there were incessant questions about SDP’s belief in human rights and civil disobedience. One after another and repeatedly, speakers urged Dr Chee to abandon civil disobedience and move on to turn the SDP into an ordinary opposition party that will discard civil disobedience and human rights into the bin.

Sitting amongst the audience, I was a bit surprised at the earnest pleas and good intentions of the speakers. I wondered if 50 years of PAP rule have subdued all of us and turned us into obedient followers of all dictates of our rulers. The PAP has banned in recent years, one-person protests under the Public Order Act. This legislation was the direct consequence of a two-man protest outside the Ministry of Manpower against the deportation of Burmese workers in Singapore. Like so many other laws that were passed by the PAP government as immediate reactions to curb a repeat of what they called ” unlawful acts”, I was surprised that such a law which was passed without much debate in parliament could be so willingly accepted and embraced by members of the public.

In America, the law reserving seats exclusively for whites on public buses was consciously disobeyed by black woman activist Rosa Parks in 1955. That act was of course frowned upon by the white establishment and Parks lost her job as a seamstress. But that defiant act gave momentum to the black civil rights movement. It gave rise to many more peaceful street protests and ultimately earned the blacks their freedom to live as free people and not as slaves. Throughout the history of the civil rights movement, thousands had gone to jail. Freedom was earned through struggles of the blacks and not given to them on a platter. And today, we have President Obama in America.

Most of us appreciate the struggles of the blacks in America and South Africa. But when it comes to the struggles of our people in our own country, we don’t seem to appreciate or understand the sacrifices of people like Dr Chee, J B Jeyaretnam and many others. We laugh at them. We described them as “stupid” and “stubborn”. We tell each other that “they never learn”. It is tragic. It is like blaming a raped victim for bringing about the rape upon herself. Yes, the PAP government gets off scotch free while Dr Chee and others are labelled “incorrigible” and are jailed. Why cannot we cast doubt on the government that gives us such unjust laws and thank those who disobey such laws and sacrificed their freedom for us? Why cannot we stand up against injustice instead of blaming the victims of oppression?

At the height of the black civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr said : “Good laws are to be obeyed. Bad laws are to be disobeyed.” It is time for us to distinguish what is good law and what is bad law. It is time for us to check if every law the PAP passes is good for us and for our country. It is time that we question why we cannot stand at street corners with placards telling our fellow citizens and our government why we are so unhappy. It is time we reflect on our past and examine ourselves before we tell Dr Chee and those brave men and women to change their ways.

This video of Sam’s mother and two sons appealing to the President outside the Istana to spare his life was shot by Martyn See on April 16th, 2005.

Singapore anti-death penalty fight lives on
Martin Abbugao, AFP, May 16, 2005

When family and friends paid a final visit to Shanmugam Murugesu on the eve of his execution Friday, he urged them to press on with a rejuvenated campaign to end the death penalty in Singapore.

There were eight other convicts waiting to be hanged at Changi Prison and he did not want them to die in isolation, one visitor recalled him saying.

Murugesu, 38, a former soldier, jet-ski champion and divorced father of two, was executed for trafficking 1,029.8 grams of marijuana, yet civil rights activists who had mounted the futile attempt to save him have vowed to fight on despite admitting it will be an uphill battle.

Interest stirred through unprecedented public efforts to save Murugesu by his family, friends and civil rights advocates has injected new life into the anti-death penalty campaign.

Emboldened by the fledgling support, the campaigners hope to further galvanize public opinion at a time when the government is opening up and allowing the public to speak out more on controversial issues.

A candlelit vigil for Murugesu held at a Singapore hotel this month attracted about 100 people – activists and opposition politicians as well as ordinary citizens, many of whom bought and wore T-shirts opposing the death penalty.

“I feel that tonight’s event is a display of courage. I think we need the courage of a lot of people for things to change,” said Iris Koh, a music teacher who volunteered to sing at the evening vigil.

Murugesu’s lawyer, M Ravi, said fear in this famously tightly controlled city-state remains a a major factor preventing more people openly supporting the campaign. In an example of the extent authorities still monitor dissenters, an “open mike session” at the vigil in which the audience was invited to speak was abruptly ended just after the first speaker began to talk.

Organizers said plainclothes police officers stepped in and asked them to scrap that portion of the program.

Singapore, which has some of the toughest laws in the world against drug trafficking, maintains that capital punishment is a crime deterrent contributing to the safety and security its residents now enjoy.

A death sentence is mandatory for trafficking more than 15 grams of heroin, 30 grams of cocaine and 500 grams of cannabis, as well as for other crimes such as murder, treason, kidnapping and certain firearm offenses. For drugs, a person caught in possession of illegal substances is assumed to be trafficking, thus putting the burden of proof on to the accused.

The death penalty “is part of a range of punishments which has helped keep crime rates and drug abuse rates in Singapore low,” the Home Affairs Ministry said. “We weigh the right to life of the convicted against the rights of victims and the rights of the community to live and work in peace and security. As a result, Singapore is one of the safest places in the world to live and work in,” it said, adding Singapore has a “well-respected and independent judiciary” and its legal system had been consistently rated highly in global rankings.

But civil rights advocates argue there is still room for error and first-time offenders such as Murugesu should be given a second chance. Human rights watchdog Amnesty International said last year more than 400 people had been executed in Singapore between 1991 and 2003, which it described as a “shocking number” for a nation of just more than four million people.

The Home Affairs Ministry said eight Singaporeans and foreigners were executed last year and 19 in 2003.

Amnesty has criticized Singapore for releasing scant information about death row convicts and their conditions.

Sinapan Samydorai, president of civil rights group Think Centre, said this was why Murugesu’s cooperation in the anti-death penalty campaign was crucial. He told them about the eight other people waiting to be hanged. One already public case is that of Nguyen Tuong Van, an Australian man of Vietnamese descent who was convicted of drug charges. – AFP

Related links on Singapore’s use of death penalty

Think Centre

Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign: facebook page and blog

We Believe in Second Chances: facebook page and blog

Petition for clemency of Yong Vui Kong denied

Author of death penalty book arrested by Singapore police day after book launch