The ISA is just one of the many factors that people take into
consideration when they vote in an elections. That the PAP has been
elected into power time and again does not therefore necessarily
imply that people approve of the ISA. They probably do not
disapprove of it strongly enough to vote the PAP out.
After all, when people feel that they are personally not affected
by a policy, it is quite human not to struggle too strongly against
it. But they overlook the fact that the ISA can be used against
anyone, especially when a person is seen to be a genuine political
threat to the government.
Francis Seow was also detained under the ISA, though only briefly.
But if he had not gone off to the States, who knows how many more
times the Act may be used against him.
Another noteworthy example was Tang Liang Hong. The Act was never
used against him, but if he had stayed behind in Singapore, he too
could have been a victim, as was Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia and many
opposition figures over there.
One must also bear in mind the lack of transparency surrounding the
ISA. But even from the little that is known about the Act, and how
it has been applied, it is quite obvious that in principle, it is a
piece of law that is too easily prone to abuse. One Chia Thye Poh
is already one too many.
[This message has been edited by witness (edited 10 August
2001).]