Ex-detainees to speak at local forum

oxford mushroom SG

"FORMER journalist and opposition figure Said Zahari is among a group of former political detainees who will speak at an arts forum next month.Organised by The Necessary Stage, the forum on Feb 26 is part of the Singapore Fringe Festival.

The other speakers include two other ex-detainees, lawyer Tan Jing Quee and former trade unionist Michael Fernandez. Also on the panel is playwright Robert Yeo, who wrote Changi, a tragic drama about political detention in which the lead character was inspired by Mr Fernandez.

They will take part in a discussion entitled 'Detention - Writing - Healing'...."

(Straits Times 7 Jan 2006)

Is this true? The government is actually allowing this event?[/quote]

MobyDog SG

what the hell has it to do with arts ? What a boring session that will be unless of course, he starts ranting and get arrested again. The maybe would interesr me.

robertteh SG

Justification is a process of converting the mind of people to believe what were wrong were not wrong or so wrong and what were the problems could be solved without doing anything except by some forms of covering up or minor nannying to appease those who are affected.

The past policies resulting in high costs of living, elitism and moneyism in politics and gerrymanderring of GRCs to perpetuate controls of autocratic rule nothing has changed yet. There is no change of anything at policy level.

What seems certain is that the news and printed media have totally stayed on course in espousing only party line and are now busy justifying past wrong policies and misdeeds as right or necessary or less wrong.

All we are seeing are justifications or good packages to make past wrongs look better or even right so that the population will be hoodwinked one more time.

Atobe SG

Firstly, ALL ex-political detainees have to sign a list of "DO NOT" on the day that they are released from detention and into the general population.

Public Speaking at a Political Forum is one of the list of "DO NOT" and MUST HAVE the approval of the Director of the Internal Security Department - who will MOST CERTAINLY seek approval from the Home Minister - a Senior Member of the Ruling Party.

Besides being allowed to speak, his speech will probably have to be submitted to the ISD Director for vetting and approval before he is allowed even to make it public.

If a member of the general public must apply for a permit and submit the contents of his speech before being allowed to speak at Speaker's Corner - do you think that the Singapore Government a.k.a the Ruling Party will allow any ex-political detainee to get away so easily ?

LazerLordz SG

I choose to see it as a sign that we are loosening up.

This is not the 1960s/1970s.We have to let the marketplace of ideas rule.Rule of law will take care of any loose cannons who are out to incite public disorder.

Let them speak and we will be much more better off listening to their side.It's time for this society to fecking grow up. Rolling Eyes

I'm thinking the government has already given them the approval, but these are not criminals anyway, their only "crime" was to believe in something else.Nothing the usual monitoring cannot do, if you want to stay safe.

ndmmxiaomayi SG

Since this is reported in the newspapers, obviously it will be true. But there is also a possibility that they will change their minds.

Anyway, elections coming. The government wants to prove that they have changed, so they let them speak lor. After this event, you have to wait for another 5 years before you get to see it again.

robertteh SG

Amend the ISA so that political freedoms are protected against any form of politically motivated persecution for holding of differing views and people truly encouraged to come forward to serve the people in building a vibrand country.

This will be a much-avaited welcome change which will truly energize the people to support the new administration of LHL as daring and courageous and not full of gimmicks and justifications as seen under the previous administration. He should realize that in today's Singapore these past ex-detainees are no longer a threat and there is no reason whatever to make them denounce their past beliefs about any communism which is quite irrelevant to our society.

oxford mushroom SG

After 9-11, not a chance….they will justify ISA on the grounds of the terrorism threat

LazerLordz SG

We should keep the ISA for threats of terrorism and organised crime only.Politicking should never be equated with threat against the state.Any disorder can be dealt with in the courts under the respective ordinances and Penal Code against public disorder, Sedition Act..etc. Those have to be dealt in open court, this is not the skulking era of the Communist insurrection.

Atobe SG

What was the original intent of the Internal Security Act - as implemented by the British Colonial Government ?

The original intent of this act was supposed to be preventive - as was so cleverly explained in 2002 by the Home Affairs Minister - WKS.

See "Singapore is to raise public awareness about the ISA"
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020413a1.htm

It is not so much the omnipotence of the Internal Security Act that is fearful but the fact that its omnipotence is left to the whim of the Ruling Elite to be used against those whom they see as a viable and potent threat to their position as real POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

If we follow Home Affairs Minister's soothing explanation that those who are detained under the ISA is for the purpose of preventing an act of violence, while those who are sentenced to jail by the courts is for the purpose of punishment - we should then question the purpose of the detention of Chia Thye Poh for more then THIRTY YEARS for holding his preferred political views that are basically communist - (not much different from the shades of communist style policies from the Ruling Party).

See "Security Act should go - Chia Thye Poh"
http://www.singapore-window.org/81128sc.htm

See "Statement by Chia on Lapse of Restriction Order
http://www.singapore-window.org/81126ctp.htm

It was unfortunate that the Internal Security Act was conveniently used to demolish grass root social activists, who fell on the wrong side of the law, simply for the fact that they were not in a political organisation but happened to be in a religious social support group - which co-incided with the religious social activism.

Surprising only the Catholic social support group came under fire from the Ruling Party aka the Singapore Government, while the other social support group from the other religions remained "untouched" .

Perhaps the Catholic social support group should not have competed with the NTUC - and its affiliate subordinate unions - in looking after the welfare of some neglected foreign workers.

Unfortunately, one of the member of this religious-social group was also a grass root supporter for the Opposition member Jeyaratnam, and had brilliantly faced LKY in the Court.

Was the embarrassing confrontation the 'real cause' of this entire episode ?

See "Marxist Plot - revisited"
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010521m2.htm

See " Tang Fong Har - the person"
http://www.singapore-window.org/tfhbck.htm

See "Introduction to the Petition" - Teo Soh Lung
http://www.singapore-window.org/teo.htm

Ms Teo Soh Lung was known to be a keen social worker, providing weekly legal consultation services to the lower income group, and was an active supporter to the Workers Party prior to her being detained under the ISA.

Unfortunately, her political future is now over as one of her condition for release from ISA Detention - is to forego her political rights.

She would have been a formidable Opposition Member, and will have been able to lend credibility to the Opposition side.

LazerLordz SG

that's unconstitutional, since when is it a crime to be holding a different set of beliefs.This is one reason why we need FOIA statutes here.

The more I look at it, it becomes more of a kindergarten pissing contest. Rolling Eyes

robertteh SG

Yes, I fully agree with you that ISA should be kept for protection of citizens against organized crimes and that would be enough. Citizens would support ISA for this purpose.

No gerrymandering of any form should be allowed to use ISA for other purposes as society has now matured with more educated populations to see wrong doings by the politicians for their own purposes and hidden agendas.

The latter can be deemed irregularities and a crime too.

oxford mushroom SG

I totally agree with you on this. Keep the ISA but limit its scope. As an additional safeguard, I would prefer making it a requirement for the government to present its case to a high court judge for continued detention beyond a certain period. I appreciate that it may not be in the public interest for evidence to be presented in open court. However, the government should satisfy the judge in chambers that there is sufficient grounds for continued detention.

Salman SG

You need pre-emption in fighting terrorists. Thats the way to play the game.
If you catch them only after they triggered the bomb like Americans, Indons and Brits do, you lose cos many innocent lives are lost and damage done.

ndmmxiaomayi SG

The problem is that they have the uncertainty factor inside. Everything is possible.

Remember the Yishun MRT incident? We prevented that. But why on earth did they choose this MRT station? Why didn't they choose a station that will disrupt us? That's the uncertainty that we can't match. We always think they will choose something that will cause the maximum destruction, but their choice has shown that they don't work this way.

No matter how alert we are, someone will definitely get through. We can't predict that. We can limit that, through intelligence. But how far can intelligence go? We can have checks, but can you limit creativity? A normal ball point pen can trigger a bomb.

In everything, there's lose, there's gain. We lost lives, but we gained experience. We know how to deal with this situation if it happens again. Singaporeans will learn the hard way that it is everyone's part to protect Singapore, not just the SCDF, SPF and SAF.

pikamaster SG

What kind of evidence is against the public interest to be presented in open court? And what anyway defines the "public interest"? I'm sure the public would be interested to know what exactly the government is using to convict suspects e.g. torture or whatever.

robertteh SG

Exactly, what constitutes public interest. It is undefined and cannot be left to personal interpretation by public servants who might be beholden by employments to bosses to observe strict and accountable principles of justice.

Salman SG

Thats why we need all kind of weapons in our arsenal to catch those terrorists, especially ISA.
I think the Americans are the most stupid people in the world. They complain about wire taps on Al Qaeda and torture of terrorists for information. I hope they learn another hard lesson for their stupidity.