The experience of detention under the ISA in
Singapore
by Tang Fong Har
I was one of the twenty-two people arrested by the Singapore
Government in 1987, detained for 85 days (of which 75 were in
solitary confinement) and when released, was still subject to
severe restrictions which infringed on my basic civil
liberties.
The Government's accusations against the twenty-two people who were
detained (who were made up of community and trade union workers,
lawyers, amateur dramatists and other professionals) were that we
were all involved in a 'marxist conspiracy' to overthrow the
Singapore government.
After our release, in April 1988, some of us issued a joint
statement in which we categorically denied the Government's
accusation against us and we also described the ill-treatment that
we had undergone while in detention. Within a day of the release of
the statement, those who signed the statement who were in Singapore
(eight people) were re-arrested, and today some of them are still
in imprisoned by my Government.
Let me described a little of the experience of being detained in
Singapore.
My ordeal began on the 20th June 1987, when at 1 o'clock in the
morning, four plain-clothed police entered my house without a
search warrant saying that they were looking for an illegal
immigrant. They gained entry into my home and then stated that I
was under arrest under the Internal Security Act. My husband and I
were ordered not to move, speak to each other or make any calls to
my lawyer or any family member. They systemically searched my house
and confiscated my passport, diary, minutes of my law society
meetings and other things. I should state that I was a lawyer and
was actively involved in the Law Society of Singapore and also a
member of a women's group.
Eventually, they took me to the Detention Centre. I was always
guarded by two people. I was ordered to strip and change into
prison clothing. Then I was photographed, finger-printed, and
brought down a passageway. One of the doors of the passageway
opened into a basement dungeon of many rooms. One of my first
impressions was that the room was very cold, and the spotlights
were such that I could not see the faces of my interrogators. I was
ordered to stand with my hands behind my back, and then the
interrogation began.
It was shouting, verbal abuse, about my Law Society activities, my
work and my family life. I was threatened constantly with
indefinite detention, and the name of Chia Thye Poh (who had been
detained for over 20 years at that time) was referred to several
times. They said that if I did not cooperate with the secret
police, they would wait for me in the same way that they were still
waiting for Chia. During my interrogation, which lasted non-stop
for 20 hours, I obviously gave 'unsatisfactory' answers. I was
slapped in the face, and the impact of the assault sent me rolling
on the floor. There was a silence followed by further
interrogation. After 20 hours I remember throwing up. I indicated
to them I would be willing to sign a statement.
I was then moved from that room to another one. I started and
finished my statement. After each page I had to give it to the case
officer, who would look through it. If he was unhappy with any part
of it, he would pass it back it again and I would have to re-do it
until it was to his satisfaction. And so we continued in this
fashion. I had to write about the Law Society, make a list of about
a hundred people (of whom J.B. Jeyaretnam was one) and then I was
told that if I did not publicly confess on TV, I would not be
released. And so I went on TV.
Thereafter I was moved to a bigger cell. After the third week, I
was allowed a few hours rest in a cell 3 ft. by 6 ft. by about 15
ft. high. This cell had no windows but had some ventilation slits.
After one month, I was served with with a detention order for one
year specifically on two charges of manipulating the opposition
Workers' Party to further the marxist cause and of instigating the
Law Society of Singapore to become a political pressure group. I
was moved to a bigger cell but was still in solitary confinement.
Family visits were limited to one visit of half-an-hour a week. At
every visit, three internal security police stood in the same room,
and we were told not to talk about the conditions of the cell or to
talk about the statement. To ignore this would mean the loss of
such visits. We were also strongly discouraged from filing habeas
corpus actions to challenge the legality of the detentions.
Except for the sun and the weather, you have no idea of the time,
no contact with the outside world and you know that the detention
order is an administrative order. What this means is that the
Minister of Home Affairs can decide, after the initial two years,
to extend the order for another two years, and so on, ad
infinitum.
At the end of 85 days in detention, I was told, at two hours'
notice, that I would be released. I was also told that if I created
any more trouble, I would be detained again and this time 'left to
rot'. I was warned to be careful about what I said to the press, as
this could jeopardise the release of those still held in detention.
I was given conditions on my release: that I could not leave the
country without permission, and that I could not join any society
without permission.
I also had to periodically report to the police so that they could
monitor my progress.
Let me take this opportunity to read from an Amnesty International
report on the detentions in Singapore, who quoted the experience of
another detainee:
'The interrogation room was 16 ft. by 12 ft.. It was soundproof,
and two teams of interrogators worked in twelve hour shifts, round
the clock for the first three days. The worst treatment was during
these first three days. While I was being questioned and shouted
at, I was made to stand continuously for 32 hours in the cold
air-conditioned room. My first non-stop interrogation lasted 64
hours. I received my first slap across the face three minutes into
this interrogation. It was during the first 36 hours that I
received all the slaps and hits. I would have received about 50
hand slaps across my face, chest, stomach and back.
According to others, they slapped man or woman alike if they did
not get a satisfactory account. The slaps brought on uncontrollable
coughing and head spun. I kept telling myself all the time that I
was not a communist. They threatened to slap me more if I did not
stop lying. I persisted and was slapped some more. It was
incredible. My head was groggy and they threatened to pour cold
water on me. But I gave the same answers to the same unreasonable
questions. Water was thrown on me and I shivered uncontrollably. My
jaws were chattering and I collapse to the floor.'
What have the families of the detainees undergone and are still
undergoing? Visits are limited and contact at the visits inhibited
by a glass panel. If words are said which displease the security
police present, they will cut off the telephone through which
communication is made. There are many rules for the detainees. They
are allowed to write letters but not allowed to draw any pictures
or sketches. Cards, Christmas cards, cards from Amnesty
International and other organisations and individuals are
impounded. They are not allowed any papers or any other
communication. There is no human contact beyond the occasional half
an hour with their solicitor.
The Archbishop of Singapore has stopped saying masses for the
detainees although families and friends continue to hold them.
Recently, friends and supporters of detainees have started a
regular monthly newsletter at very great personal risk, about the
situation in the country.
As a conclusion, I would like to salute the spirit of the people
who are still being held in detention, and emphasise most strongly
how much they and their families need our support.
- Tang Fong Har, 1989
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/messages/3467?xm=1&m=e&l=1