Rev James Minchin and our secret police
by Teo Soh Lung
21 Nov 2012
When I wrote my last post (11 Nov 2012) on the deportation of
Rev James Minchin, I did not even remotely think that two
mainstream media (The Straits Times (ST) and TODAY) would on the
following day, 12 Nov 2012, inform the world that Function 8 had,
more than a year ago (allegedly in Aug 2011), contributed to the
Singapore government’s dossier against him. How did ST and TODAY
know it was Function 8 which had organised the forum at which Rev
Minchin had allegedly said that “the rule of law was bypassed and
corrupted in Singapore, and questioned the independence and
integrity of the judiciary?” Incidentally, this oft repeated phrase
“questioned [or sometimes “undermined”] the independence and
integrity of the judiciary” irritates me. Is the judiciary our most
fragile and sweetest smelling flower, our beautiful Keng Hua that
blooms at midnight and survives only a few hours? Does it always
need the government to protect its standing?
As stated in the press release of Function 8 of 19 Nov 2012, it did
not invite anyone from the media to any of its forums. How did
Janice Heng of ST and the anonymous reporter/s of TODAY know that
it was at a Function 8 event that Rev Minchin uttered the alleged
words MHA complained about? Did the reporters tail Rev Minchin
throughout his stay in Singapore? Or did anonymous officers of MHA
instigate the reporters to name Function 8? Was the media aiding
and abetting MHA in its preparation for some sinister happening to
Function 8? Even if the media intended to aid and abet MHA,
shouldn’t its reporters check with Function 8 as to the truth of
MHA’s allegations before publication? Compliance with this golden
rule of good journalism is surely important when the alleged words
had contributed to Rev Minchin’s traumatic expulsion from
Singapore.
ST also reported that MHA said that Rev Minchin “had breached
regulations on the involvement of foreigners in political talks by
speaking at the forum without the necessary permit.” MHA did not
cite the law but ST took it upon itself to proclaim that Rev
Minchin should have had a “Miscellaneous Work Pass” before he
commented on domestic politics. This implied that Function 8, if it
was indeed the organiser of the forum, was in breach of the law
more than a year ago. Function 8 had in its press release denied
any breach of the law.
I don’t know if the ST had consulted its lawyers on this issue. I
am very certain that ST is incorrect but the law is not my concern
in this article. My concern is this: “How did MHA know that Rev
James Minchin had said “the rule of law was bypassed and corrupted
in Singapore, and questioned the independence and integrity of the
judiciary”” at the forum? Which forum and where and when was it
held? MHA must be precise when it makes serious allegations against
a person who because of what he is alleged to have said, is
deported.
We all know that MHA has the habit of bugging private conversations
of citizens, non citizens and members of organisations. It is part
of its job and we pay them. But I question the legitimacy of spying
on lawful activities of people and organisations. Let me narrate
one instance of MHA’s snooping of a respectable organisation, The
Law Society of Singapore.
In 1986, lawyers requisitioned
an extraordinary general meeting to pass a resolution calling upon
the government to withdraw the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill
1986. One of the objectives of the bill was to oust the popularly
elected Mr Francis Seow from being the society’s president. The
meeting was held at a hotel and more than 400 lawyers attended. I
was the mover of the motion which was passed almost unanimously.
What surprised me subsequently was the revelation that the entire
private proceedings was tape recorded by the Ministry of Law,
presumably using the good services of MHA. Soon after the
meeting,
I was summoned before a parliamentary select committee at which
the former prime minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew questioned me at length
about my speech at the meeting. He showed me a transcript of my
speech. I quote part of the report of that parliamentary committee.
For easier reading, I have inserted “Prime Minister” and “Teo” in
the questions and answers:
Prime Minister: … Read your first paragraph. I have sidelined it
for you to make it simple. “We call this meeting simply because …,
read it? ---
Teo: Mr Chairman, can I ask a question? This speech appears to
me to have been a transcript of what I said at the EGM. And I would
like to know how this manage to get into the hands of Mr
Lee.
Prime Minister: In the age of the tape recorder, you want to
know how I am able to get a transcript of what you said?
---
Teo: But how did the tape recorder get into the EGM
room?
Prime Minister: I am not interested, Miss Teo. I am interested
in taking you through what you said. I didn’t make the speech. You
did. If you didn’t make the speech ---?---
Teo: I don’t deny making the speech.
Prime Minister: Let’s go through it? ---
Teo: But I would like to know how that ---
Prime Minister: How I was given the speech? By the Ministry of
Law?
Teo: So the Minister of Law had set a tape recorder in the
room.
Prime Minister: Yes, please. I assume that?---
Teo: Right, thank you.
Prime Minister: Read it?---
Teo: Where do you want me to read?
….
Now that I have re-read the Minutes of Evidence recorded, I
realise that some words may be missing and they are probably
represented by ---. I recall that after asking several questions,
the prime minister said “I am told that it was so easy to
transcribe your speech”.
Somehow this sentence is missing from the Minutes. But it does
not matter. The prime minister did admit after some persuasion,
that the Ministry of Law bugged the room.
Once upon a time, in Eastern Europe, the secret police spied on
everyone. For the secret police, it was a comfortable job (even if
it was a loathsome job) that enabled them to live well. For those
imprisoned as a result of their work, like the dissident Czech
playwright, essayist and poet, Vaclav Havel who later became the
president of Czechoslovakia, it was years of torture, loneliness
and hardship in cold prison cells.
In today’s Singapore and in the light of our earnest National
Conversation, should the subject of how much money we spend on
spies who invade the privacy of individuals and organisations that
mean no harm to Singapore be discussed? Are such spies necessary
for the progress of our country? Shouldn’t we open our minds about
what foreigners say about us and debate with them when we do not
agree with what they say instead of shutting them out of our
country? Or should we tell the world that Singapore is not a
developed country and does not believe in freedom of speech and the
rule of law? And lastly, shall we tell the world that our judiciary
is as fragile as our lovely keng hua, and has to be protected by
the executive always?
Fr James Minchin barred from entering Singapore
by Teo Soh Lung
11 Nov 2012
I said in an earlier post that “It would have been better for
the government to demolish Minchin's arguments using its controlled
media rather than to ban him. Its action has defeated itself. Its
refusal to change will ultimately bring about its
downfall.”
The deportation of Fr James Minchin, author of “No Man is an
Island” may have surprised somepeople in Singapore even though
there had been deportations of lawyers assisting the SDP recently.
In the 1990s, some of my friends and acquaintances were prevented
from entering Singapore. There were occasions when I had waited at
the airport for friends who were supposed to have arrived but
failed to show up at the arrival hall. They were simply detained in
a room, disallowed the use of the telephone and told to board the
next flight home. A friend’s friend was interrogated for several
hours by “old hands” of the secret police and departed to the last
port of embarkation. In those days, there were no handy mobile
phones and I wouldn’t know if they would have been allowed to call
from their mobile phones and communicate with their friends who
were waiting for them when they were denied entry. In those days, I
was in no position to comment as there was no internet. So my
friends and acquaintances were quietly deported. We simply felt the
injustice of it all but did nothing, not that we can do more or
anything for Fr James Minchin this time.
In the 1990s, the intimidation of the immigration police and I
suspect, officers from the Internal Security Department was common.
Anthony Lester QC was stopped at the airport and made to wait in a
room while officers apparently checked if he had a right to return
to see his former client.
A friend had her passport retained at the airport and told to
report to the immigration department to retrieve it. She was
interrogated for two days and told to cooperate in order to make
life easier for them and for her. In the end, she had the sense to
tell them that they can do whatever they want but that her passport
did not belong to the Singapore government.
In the 1990s, there was no internet. The inability of a person
to enter Singapore means that his channel of communication with
friends in Singapore would have ended more or less. Letters by
snail mail would take time and effort and the chances of him losing
contact with friends in Singapore would be natural. Today however,
skype, emails, facebooks, youtube, twitter, cheap telephone calls
and airflights etc would not cut off links between the deported and
whoever he wishes to contact in Singapore. So what is the use of
the Singapore government barring Fr James Minchin from entering
Singapore?
I can only think of two reasons. Old habits die hard and old
methods that worked in the past are hard to discard. The temptation
to remind individuals that the Singapore government is all powerful
and that its power to deport anyone it deems acting against its
interest (not necessarily against the interest of the country)
cannot be undermined. That may be so but in today’s internet age,
would the Singapore government like to preserve and project the old
image that it is intolerant of criticisms, whether from
Singaporeans or foreigners? I don’t know. I can only say that by
preserving and projecting its old authoritarian image, it has
failed to keep up with a changing society and may ultimately bring
about its own downfall. It would have been better for the
government to openly criticise what Fr Minchin said in the
interview with Vincent Wijeysingha of the SDP using its mainstream
media, issue press statements or call a press conference, (here I
am assuming that this interview sparked the action taken by the
immigration for it happened just a few weeks ago), listen to what
others say about its views and that of Fr Minchin. After all, “No
Man is an Island” was written in the 1980s and even Fr Minchin
admits that Singapore is now a more open society. Surely such a
view is a compliment to the PAP. But perhaps the government no
longer has faith in its own mainstream media since it is always
“slightly behind the curve” as Cherion George said recently.
http://fn8org.wordpress.com