<!--end: postmeta-->
The following transcripts are by Donaldson Tan of
New
Asia Republic. The video on Dr Lim Hock Siew has been
banned on Youtube and on Martyn See’s – the fimmaker – blogsite at
http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com
. It is however available on other host sites such as
this
one.
Donaldson Tan
On 12 July 2010, the Media Development Authority
announced its decision to ban the film (starting from 14 July 2010)
depicting Dr Lim Hock Siew speaking publicly on his experience
being detained under the Internal Security Act.
A
founding member of the ruling People’s Action Party, Lim was
accused of being a communist and was arrested without trial in
1963, and had his detention prolonged by the then Prime Minister
Lee Kuan Yew until his release in 1982.
On 14th of Nov 2009, Lim made his first post-detention
speech in Singapore during a book launch. The day coincided with
the arrival of US President Barack Obama in Singapore for the APEC
Summit.
My contribution to this book is very modest. Because of my
ill-health, I’ve not been able to write too much. It comprises
mainly of a statement which I made when I was in prison in 1972,
after 9 years of incarceration.
As you know, I was detained in Coldstore Operation in February
the 2nd 1963, and I was the last one to come out from the batch of
detainees almost 20 years later. Now this statement mainly stated
my stand on my detention.
After 9 years of incarceration, they wanted me to issue a
statement to firstly support the so-called democratic system of
Singapore, and secondly to renounce politics. I told them that
these two demands are self-contradictory, because if there is
parliamentary democracy, then I don’t have to give up politics.
So they said, “You must say something to show repentance other
wise Lee Kuan Yew will lose face.” For me this not a question of
pride, it’s a question of principle. In the first place, if a
person has to save his face by depriving somebody else of his
fundamental rights, then that’s not a face that’s worth saving.
So the, the main democratic right is a fundamental
constitutional right of the people of Singapore. And no one should
be deprived of their right, and held ransom to extort statements of
repentance and contrition. So the whole thing bogged down to having
to issue a statement of repentance, which I refused.
Subsequently, I was detained for another almost 10 years, after
that statement was issued. So a total of 19 years and eight months,
longer than a life sentence. Life sentences will be released after
13 years, after the initial one-third remission, but for no charge,
no trial, I was detained for longer than life sentences.
A lot of hullabaloo have been said recently on the right of
political detainees to appeal to an Advisory Board. I want to tell
you about my experience in this Advisory Board.
After about one year of detention, I was asked to the prison
main gate at about 4pm, and a statement of notice to say that I had
to appear before the Advisory Board the next day, and I was given a
two fool-scap paper of so-called charge sheets.
I said I wanted to keep these sheets of paper so I could prepare
for my next morning’s appearance. They said, “No, you cannot keep
it. Just read it and we’ll take it back.”
I said I want to inform my lawyer about this. They said, “No,
you have the right to inform your lawyer, but you cannot telephone
him now.” I said, “In that case, how do I contact my lawyer?” He
said, “That’s the law.”
So the next morning I was called to the High Court in handcuffs
and all that to appear before an Advisory Board comprising three
persons. A judge called Judge Winslow and two other persons. One is
a certain Elias, I think he’s a lawyer, and the other one a Chinese
gentleman whose name I cannot remember.
So, on these so-called charge sheets, there were a lot of blank
spaces. I asked Judge Winslow what do these blank spaces mean? He
said, “Oh, these are charges which are so sensitive that they can
be shown only to the Advisory Board but not to you.”
I said, “How the hell can anybody defend himself against a
charge that’s not even revealed to him?” I asked him for advice, he
just said [shrugs shoulder]. I said, “Is this a mockery of justice
or what?” He said, “This is the law.”
You see, the whole thing is a judicial farce. I mean, it’s
incredible that anyone has to face this kind of mockery, this kind
of so-called justice, and the fact that a High court judge is being
put as the chairman of this Advisory Board gives the public an
illusion that there is judgement, there is justice. And I told him
that if I were a High court judge, I would not lend credence to
this mockery by my presence.
Then this Elias threatened me with contempt of court. I was very
happy when he with contempt of court, because after all I was
already in prison, so threatening me with contempt of court and al
that makes no difference to me. By the way, in my 20 years in
prison, I was detained in practically all the prisons in Singapore,
except of course the female prison.
In the end, the judge said, “No, no, let the doctor have his
say, there’s no question of contempt of court.” So I gave a
three-hour statement to debunk all the so-called charges. One of
the charges was in fact a false charge.
I was charged for being one of the right Fajar students who were
charged for sedition. I said, “As a matter of fact, I didn’t have
the privilege to be one of the eight. In fact, I would be flattered
to be one of the eight, and that I was not one of the eight.
So why should I be imprisoned for allegedly being one of the
eight, when these eight were acquitted without being called, and
acquitted and defended by Lee Kuan Yew himself, who is now
detaining me?”
He said, “This is the law.”
Everything is the law. So recently you have heard all this
so-called rule of law. Now there is detention without trial by ISA
[Internal Security Act], a law which makes a mockery of the concept
of rule of law. It is a law that is outside the rule of law. Once
you are detained under the ISA, you have no legal defence
whatsoever.
I tried the habeas corpus twice. On one occasion I succeeded on
the technical error on the side of the government–they did not sign
my detention order. It was supposed to be signed by a minister, but
it was delegated to a civil servant. So on that account the court
has to release me on a technical point.
So when I was released, there was the Special Branch waiting for
me outside Queenstown Prison. I was re-arrested one minute later.
It was a mock release. And for that habeas corpus, I was punished
and sent to the most hideous of all detention centres, the Central
Police Station head office.
That was a place that is not fit to keep animals let alone human
beings. The place was so dark, so stinky and so ill-ventilated that
you cannot stand inside for more than 24 hours, but I was locked in
there for 24 hours a day. And the whole place was infested with
bugs. I had a lot of bugs for company.
No reading material and the light was so dim that I could hardly
see the crease of my hand. So immediately the five of us went on
hunger strike, and my ulcer bled and I had to be transferred to
hospital. That was the so-called habeas corpus right there you
have. Try it at your risk, or be severely punished.
The second time I went for habeas corpus case was when they
tried to force me to do manual labour. That was in 1972. They said
all detainees should do manual labour as a programme of
rehabilitation. I was supposed to do carpentry. So this
superintendent told me that it was good for you as a doctor, you
try to become more dexterous with your hand.
So I said, “You do not have the qualifications to enter a
medical college, and here you are telling a doctor what is good for
post-graduate education. Are you over-reaching yourself?”
He said, “This is the law. You have to be paid 8 cents a day.”
So we all went on hunger strike, and some of us went on hunger
strike for three months in order to frustrate their attempt to make
us labourers like criminals. I went on hunger strike for three
weeks before they came in and said, “Okay, we exempt you from
that.”
And the women detainees in Moon Crescent Centre went on hunger
strike for 130 days, and they were forced-fed. Some of them vomited
after being fed milk by the tube inserted forcefully into their
oesophagus.
One girl vomited and the superintendent forced for wardens to
carry her and wiped the floor with her pants. This is the kind of
treatment meted to detainees. All these of course suppressed by the
press, but this is the thing we all had to go through.
Now all of us had to go through detention in solitary
confinement. Solitary confinement according to Lee Kuan Yew himself
is a very bad form of torture. I will read to you what Lee Kuan Yew
said of solitary confinement: “The biggest punishment a man can
receive is total isolation in a dungeon, black and complete
withdrawal of all stimuli. That is real torture.” Lee Kuan Yew,
January 2008.
Although he knows it is real torture, he had no compunction in
meting out this real torture to all detainees without exception.
Some of us had to undergo this real torture, not for one day, two
days, but for six months. Now under the law, there is a protection
for even criminal prisoners from this kind of torture.
A criminal prisoner when found guilty of infringing prison rules
will be sentenced to solitary confinement for not more than two
weeks, because of the obvious mental health effects. But for
political detainees, there is no protection.
And Lee Eu Seng, the general manager of Nanyang Zhao Pao, was
put into solitary confinement not once but twice, and it is to his
credit he withstood that kind of real torture.
TT Rajah, a lawyer who was detained for two and half years, was
put under solitary confinement for six months. Twice. Said Zahari
was put into solitary confinement four times in his long 17 years
of detention.
It is to our credit that we did not back down despite our
difficult ordeal. We stood our ground and held on to our integrity.
Today, they are asking us to be magnanimous. What does magnanimity
mean? Only those who have suffered have the moral right, the moral
standing to be magnanimous, not the culprit.
The culprit can seek forgiveness, if they admit their mistakes
and apologise for it. Not for the victims of this torture to seek
forgiveness. We are the ones who have to be magnanimous, and we are
prepared to be magnanimous provided the culprits admit their
mistakes and seek our forgiveness.
In my statement which I released to the press in 1972, through
my wife Beatrice Chen, and which was of course suppressed by the
newspapers, but was distributed a lot to all student
organisations–I said the proper way to settle our case is that you
must release us without conditions.
Unconditional release. Moreover, you must compensate us for our
long detention and also apologise. I said I’m prepared to forgo
these two last conditions of having to compensate us and also
having to apologise to us because I don’t believe an arrogant man
like Lee Kuan Yew would concede easily.
On that question of release unconditionally–that we stand firm,
I stood firm and had to suffer for two decades. That is the price
that we had to pay for our integrity.
In Singapore, we have a situation where the government leaders
said they have integrity that has to be sustained by the highest
pay in the world, but yet they demand from political opponents and
detainees an integrity that has to be sustained by the longest
imprisonment in the world.
This kind of two types of integrity, to compare them is to
compare heaven and earth. Why should anybody has to sacrifice so
much just to sustain his integrity and his beliefs? And the
government have to reward themselves with so much high pay. This is
the immorality of the political situation in Singapore today.
Now, detention without trial is not a peaceful action. It is an
act of violence. They come to see you not in the daylight with an
invitation card. They come in the morning, 4am. That is the time
when decent people sleep, and when political terrorists and tyrants
strike. And when you are detained, you are subjected to all kinds
of mental and even physical torture.
This is not only unique for the 1963 batch, it was also
practised in many other batches of detention: 1972, and as late as
1987. When Teo Soh Lung and her group of so-called marxist
detainees were subjected to mental and physical torture. And women
lawyers can be subjected to torture. But when these women lawyers
came out and issued a statement to describe how they have been
tortured, they were again detained and compelled to withdraw their
accusation.
What type of rule of law is that when the accuser can be
punished by the accused against the government, and compelled to
withdraw their accusation? Is it not a rule of law justice turned
upside down? Now this is a situation where even the Law Society
dare not utter a word of protest. They are so impotent after what
they had done to the Law Society in 1987.
Now, Poo Soo Kai has written a very good article on Operation
Coldstore. In it, he has revealed a lot of declassified British
archive documents, showing how the British and Lee Kuan Yew
conspired and collaborated to crush the opposition before the 1963
General Elections. The whole aim of this merger was to crush the
opposition before the 1963 elections.
And today, the PAP is standing on high moral ground, demanding
human rights in other countries, even demanding the realise of
political detainees in Myanmar. But precisely on what moral ground
are they standing to have this demand? In examining their past
records, they are standing on a pedestal that is leaking with worms
and vermin, Let them repent first their own dismal record of human
rights and then you may have the moral right to cast aspersions on
other people’s lack of human rights.
Poh Soo Kai has also written the last chapter of this book [The
Fajar Generation], about the future of Socialism. Many of you may
ponder what is the relevance of Socialism in this era. after 50
years when the club was formed, Socialist movements all over the
world has suffered a lot of setbacks and even defeats, and some
wonder whether we are still relevant.
The recent economic crisis, the recent financial crisis, has
once again exploded the corruption and immorality of the capitalist
system, and feel that human beings should deserve something better
than a system that is generated by greed and by corruption.
Now some of you may have heard that when you are young you are
idealistic, when you’re old you are realistic. Now this is the kind
of rubbish that is used by those who have either lost their ideals
or have sold their ideals for self-interests. Each should not
wither one’s ideals or convictions.
If anything, it should only consolidate and make it more
resolute. If age has anything to do with it, it is only by way of
expression and application of these ideals and convictions having
the benefit of a youthful experience. And a life without
convictions, without idealism, is a mere meaningless existence, and
I’m sure most of you will agree that as human beings, we are worthy
of a life much more meaningful than just that.
Thank you.
Dr Lim Hock Siew is currently 78 years and is a retired
physician.
He remains a staunch socialist.
Lee Kuan Yew remains in political office, and now holds the
title of Minister Mentor.
