Senior Minister Goh Chok
Tong revealed in his interviews for the SPH
publication “Men in White: The Untold Stories of the PAP” that
former National Development Minister S Dhanabalan left the Cabinet
in 1992 because he was not
comfortable with the way the PAP had dealt with the “Marxist
Conspiracy” in 1987.
“At that time, given the information, he was not fully comfortable with the
action we took…he felt uncomfortable and thought there could be
more of such episodes in the future…he’d better
leave the Cabinet. I respected him for his view,” Mr Goh said.
Mr Dhanabalan said his reason for quitting some 12 years later,
was one of conviction:
"My philosophy is one
where I need to have complete conviction about some key policies
and if I have differences, it doesn’t mean I am against the
group……but I have to try and live with myself if I have some
disagreements on some things," he said.
On May 21st 1987, 22 young
social workers, lawyers, businessmen, theatre practitioners and
other professionals were detained without trial under the internal
security law and accused of “being members of a dangerous Marxist
conspiracy bent on subverting the PAP ruled government by force,
and replacing it with a Marxist state.” A second
wave of arrests took place on June 20th the same year.
The operation was dubbed “Operation Spectrum” and was carried
out by the Singapore’s Internal Security Department (ISD) using the
Internal Security Act (ISA) which allows for detention without
trial. This marked the last time that the ISA would be used against
politicians and activists.
Singapore’s former
Solicitor-General Francis Seow was also detained by the
ISD for two months after he
turned up at the detention center to speak to a
detainee who had sought his legal assistance. Seow
was later released and allowed to leave for the United States where
he now lives.
Though the detainees were protrayed as staunch Marxists and a
confession trial was screened on TV (which they later retracted),
many Singaporeans remained
sceptical about the government’s case including some senior figures
within the establishment itself.
The present
Attorney-General Mr Walter Woon said in an
interview to the Straits Times in 1991: “As far as I am concerned,
the government’s case is
still not proven. I would not say those fellows
were Red, not from the stuff they presented…I think a lot of people
have this scepticism.”
Even Finance Minister Mr Tharman was
unconvinced: “Although I had no access to state
intelligence, from what I
knew of them, most were social activists but not out to subvert the
system,” he told the Straits Times in 2001.
The arbitrary arrests and
detentions of 22 harmless civilians had dealt a blow to the PAP
government’s international reputation. From then
on, the ISA was used only sparingly against suspected terrorists.
No opposition politician was ever arrested under the ISA again.
The Internal Security Act
was a colonial relic introduced by the British in both Malaya and
Singapore in 1948 as part of the “Emergency Regulations” to contain
the Communist insurgency.
In 1960, the Emergency was declared over, but the Internal
Security Act was passed in its place with much of the same
power. On its separation from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore
retained the ISA.
The ISA was first used by
Singapore in 1963 to arrest 117 opposition party and
labor union leaders suspected to be communists under “Operation
Coldstore”, some of whom were detained for up to 32
years.
On 1 August 2009, a massive anti-ISA protest participated
by 20,000 people took place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia to call for
the end of the law.
As a result of constant political pressure exerted by the
opposition, NGOs and the Malaysian Bar, the Malaysian Prime
Minister Najib Tun Razak is forced to make a promise that he will
“review” the law upon taking office in March this year.
In Singapore, most Singaporeans remain ignorant of the
implications of the ISA or even its existence.
The ISA is an obsolete,
unnecessary and repressive law which has no place in a modern
democracy like Singapore. It should be repealed and an
“Anti-terrorism” act introduced in its place to deal specifically
with terrorists.
As the escape of Mas Selamat Kasteri has demonstrated, the ISD
is not quite equipped to tackle terrorism and should be replaced by
a highly specialized, trained and experienced “anti-terrorism
department” instead to ensure that no Singaporean will ever be
arrested and detained under the ISA again.
http://sgblogs.com/entry/what-left-wing-stood/360041
