I have said this many times before in this blog. It won't hurt to say it one more time. I against the ISA and I would like to see it abolished. I am also against any other law that requires detention without trial.
So what is the Agenda of the ex-ISA detainees? -
I know what I want. I want a total removal of the ISA and any other law that allows detention without trial. But I don't get exactly what ex-ISA detainees and their supporters want. Somehow, their words and actions don't match.
What is their agenda? Is it....
1. About Human Rights?
2. Recourse and compensation for the detainees?
3. Are they asking to re-write history?
4. Or they trying revive the Socialist Left Ideal?
1. Human Rights -
Now if the agenda is about Human Rights, why is there an over emphasis on the detainees of Op Cold Store, the Marxists Conspirators of 1987 and all things that has to do with the Left in Singapore, yet nothing gets mentioned about the current JI detainees?
Aren't the current JI detainees humans too? Don't they have the right to defend themselves in a fair trial too?
So if ex-detainees and their supporters find that the Leftists have been wronged because they were detained without trial, why are they so silent about the JI detainees, who have also been detained without trial?
If anyone wants to argue that terror is so important we cannot have them on trial, I will say you have shot self in foot. That's because that's the argument why the Leftists were detained in the first place!
The Leftists were detained due to the Communist threat. The communists were also called "Communist Terrorists" (CTs for short) by the Brits. And terror was the name of the game by the Communists! - I discussed how Chin Peng used terror tactics to wage war and how that cost over 11000 lives in the 1950s here - Singapore's history of turbulence nothing compared to Malaysia's - The Malayan Emergency
Of course, it can be argued that it was never proven that Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan and the rest from Singapore ever had ties with Communist Terrorist Chin Peng, and they were denied a fair trial to make that point. Good argument indeed! Now, isn't this the same case for Mas Selamat and his gang? They too are denied to have a fair trial to make their defence.
So isn't the over-emphasis of the detention of the Leftists (hey, they're no longer detained), yet the total silence on JI detainees (hey, they ARE currently detained) an indication that these ex-ISA detainees and their supporters have something else in mind, other than Human Rights?
2. Recourse and Compensation -
Is this what the ex-detainees and their supporters are asking for? If it is, they should spell it out clearly that is what they want. But they haven't. So my guess is that this is not what they are asking for.
3. Re-writing history -
It does look like it, doesn't it? The ex-detainees and their supporters seem to be making this point quite loud and clear. They want to have the names of the ex-detainees cleared. They want to have history to look at them in good light.
I can't say that I am totally in agreement with that. While I agree that they have been wronged in view of the fact that they were not given a chance to defend themselves in a free and open trial, I cannot say that they are totally angels. After all, the early Leftists like Lim Chin Siong and his followers did instigate violent riots.
Wait a minute. Isn't the instigation of riots the reason why they were the target of the Brit govt, that caused them to land in detention in the first place?
Here's what I wrote about the violent riotous past of the Leftists - Are the Socialist Left truly for S'pore or do they have a sinister agenda?
True to that ideal, the early Leftists depended mainly on the Chinese ground to organise riots against the Brit govt in the 1950s. Out of the six major riots in Singapore's history, three of them were organised by the Leftists using the Chinese Platform - History of Riots in Singapore - LKY's racist version has to be stopped
2. 1954 - National Service Riots
Dispute - Brit govt makes it compulsory to serve NS for those aged 18 to 20. Young Singaporeans were not willing to serve a foreign govt.
Parties who rioted - Chinese school students against the British govt.
3. 1955 - Hock Lee Bus Riots
Dispute - This was a labour riot. Workers rioted against poor working conditions set by bus companies. It is also recorded by many that the Hock Lee Bus riot was politically motivated against the pro-Brit government.
Parties who rioted - Bus workers, joined by Chinese school students against bus companies.
4. 1956 - Chinese Middle School Riots -
This is actually not just one riot, but a series of riots.
Dispute - Lim Yew Hock, Chief Minister, de-registered and banned two pro-communist organisations.
Parties who rioted - Chinese students against the pro-Brit govt of Singapore. The students gathered and assembled at Chung Cheng High School and Chinese High School.
Chin Siong denies he's a Communist.
Well, at least the media gave Chin Siong a chance to say that (before his detention). What about the JI detainees?
In short, before the ex-detainees are allowed to re-write history, they should at least acknowledge that their early leaders had a very violent past.
4. Reviving the Leftist Ideal? -
While it looks like the ex-detainees and their supporters are possibly looking for a rewrite of history, putting them in better light, what looks even more sinister is their intended revival of the Socialist Left. Say, isn't that what the govt (and many Singaporeans too), should be wary about?
Let's look at Teo Soh Lung, one of the detainees of 1987 and an SDP member who stood at Yuhua last GE. These are the very words, right from the horse's mouth. See link below.
A memorial gathering in honour of Tan Jing Quee
Like people of his (ie Tan Jing Quee) generation, he believed in the Malayan dream, which saw Singapore as part of a socialist Malaya. To them, the politics of race in Malaysia today, as well as the persistent vulnerability of Singapore, and its problematic attempts at nation-building are a result of the betrayal of this dream. The decimation of the left was not achieved through the strength of popular mandate against them, but through using state power to effect detention without trial and other forms of persecution such as banishment orders. The repressive measures were undertaken in the name of battling communism.
Right from the mouth of Teo Soh Lung, one of the ex-detainees of 1987, "Like people of his (ie Tan Jing Quee) generation, he believed in the Malayan dream, which saw Singapore as part of a socialist Malaya. To them, the politics of race in Malaysia today, as well as the persistent vulnerability of Singapore, ..."
I didn't say it. I didn't put words into her mouth. From her own words, Ms Teo still harbours the Malayan Dream of unifying Singapore and Malaysia into one Socialist Union under the Socialist banner.
Let's remember this and remember it well. Wasn't Chin Peng, the Communist Terrorist, who was responsible for the deaths of 11000 people in Malaya in the 1950s? Wasn't he the one who propagated the idea of a Socialist Malaya and used terror tactics, including killing innocent men, women and children?
Chin Peng never mentioned a unified Singapore/Malaya under the Socialist banner ever. He also never acknowledged Lim Chin Siong. Chin Siong on his part too, never mentioned a unified Singapore/Malaya under the Socialist banner. Neither did he attempt to make contact with Chin Peng.
But looking at Ms Teo's words, is this an insight to what the early Leftist leaders had in mind that was never made known before, or is it just her opinion?
We'll never know. That's because she was detained without trial. We never got to hear her defence or true thoughts and her ideals.
Critical Analysis of Ms Teo's words -
Let's look at Ms Teo's words again that she believes Tan Jing Quee (one of the early Left Leaders) wanted to unify Singapore and Malaya under the Socialist banner. Is this just an ideal that she is propagating today? Or is she also trying to propagate the means, that was used, ie violence like riots in Singapore instigated by Lim Chin Sionig, and/or terror tactics in Malaya as engaged by Chin Peng?
Again, we'll never know. She was not put on trial!
As a Singaporean, are you comfortable to have a person like Teo Soh Lung your MP? Your minister? Part of your govt? She made NO MENTION to condemn, or at least express regret, that the early leaders of the Left resorted to violent riots in Singapore, as well as violent terror tactics in Malaya.
Yet, she without the slightest flinch of her conscience, publicly supports the ideals of the violent early Left Leaders?
Ask yourself now. How comfortable are you to have her your leader?
I suspect that PAP must have been terrified with her ideals in 1987 and decided to lock her up. In a way, wasn't her ideals that got her into trouble in the first place?
Concluding Words -
I don't believe that these ex-detainees are interested in Human Rights. They totally ignored that there are current ISA detainees.
I also don't believe they are asking for compensation. They make no mention of that either.
I suspect they are looking for a re-writing of the history of their detentions without trial, which would put them in better light. I don't have a problem with that per se - on condition they acknowledge the violent past of their early leaders and they don't distort the truth.
As for the revival of the Socialist Left, this is what I have to say. Do it the honest way - elections. Form a party like the Barisan Socialis. Campaign. Walk the ground. Convince voters. If the voters put you in. I accept. But don't go round trying to talk much about Human Rights, when it is only your personal selfish agenda you are interested in promoting.
Finally, I fully support the removal of the ISA. That would mean that detainees would be put on trial to defend themselves.
That would also mean that if any ex-ISA detainee does get charged in future, he/she would be under oath to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Only then it would be exposed what these ex-detainees' true intentions are, won't it?
==========
Related Links:
ISA Arrests - who did Tan Jing Quee have in mind to link up with, in the North?
Ex-ISA Detainees Issue - Teo Soh Lung's smoking gun
Anti-ISA campaigners are as one dimensional as pro-ISA supporters
Malaysia abolishes ISA? It's too early too celebrate
Are the Socialist Left truly for S'pore or do they have a sinister agenda?
Is Tan Jee Say being used by the Left?
Tan Kin Lian is naive to the point of being ignorant (about the Socialist Left's violent past)
Why ask PE candidates about ISA's detention of Marxist conspirators of 80s, when we have JI detainees today?
PAP gloats its "glory" days, Socialist Left gloats its "gory" days
18 comments:
Why dont the ISA detainees sued LKY, GCT or the ISD officers since they are the one who detained them.
Just sued them in the World court, if the Singapore court is not able to handle it, just like Bosnia, Libya etc.
What you wrote does make a lot of sense.
I support giving any accused a chance to prove themselves innocent.
You however did not mention the torture and forced confessions.
LOL @ the torture comment
Wat is interrogation without questioning?
u xpect the interrogators to say nicely to the leftists:
"Dear leftist, please ensure you have 8 hours of good sleep. We will question you again tomorrow."
Or do you want the interrogators to say
"Hi, please come back tomorrow. Please ensure you are fully hydrated and have at least 8 hours of sleep before you come back again. See you! Have a nice evening!"
Or you want
"Hi! It's dinner time! Do you want char kway teow or chicken rice?"
Among your 4 possible reasons, I actually think No.2 (asking for compensation) is the REAL one, just that they are too shy or "not thick skin" enough to ask for it directly, thats why they never mention it.
You are right, Reason No.1 (civil rights) is definitely OUT. Reason No.3 (reframing history) is a possibility; after all, who doesnt want to be seen as Good Guy & Hero?
But Reason No.4 (reviving Leftism)which you speculate as the REAL reason, is too far fetched. As you say, if thats what they want, they should do it in a legit way.
The past is the past. Why should they use "being unjustly detained 24 years ago" as a reason to bring Leftism back to SG?
Detention & Leftism are unrelated: one is a legal contention, the other, an outdated political ideology. On SG soil, it's DOA (dead on arrival). If their aim is to bring it back, theyre going about it in a roundabout way, clearly doomed to fail. Could they really be that dumb?
So, IMHO, theyre just trying to drum up sympathy, so that at a later time if they are successful, they can open their mouth & ask for a few million in compensation.
Anonymous 1:16PM
u are right. of coz it is about compensation and too early to demand that now mah.
it is a good business plan. create controversy, get publicity and sympathy, then try get compensation. if cannot get, still got back up plan - sell books on their ordeal.
Barrie, refreshing points! i agree with you... The veiled references of her support to the leftist movement is alarming. Thanks for pointing that out.
When she stood in my area (Yuhua), i actually considered voting for her...
Anon 30 September 2011 9:52 AM
>>You however did not mention the torture and forced confessions.
>>
This is the problem with detention w/o trial. It cuts both ways. While the detainees have no chance to defend selves in court, the govt will have to deal with the fact that the detainees can make allegations of abuse when they were under detention.
The fact that PAP makes no explicit denial about the tortures, but speak so much about their involvement in Marxism, speaks volumes.
In any case, "war on terror" also involves torture that's worse. Many detainees around the world die because of the torture techniques . More reason to have the JI detainees put on trial.
====
Anon 30 September 2011 1:16 PM
>>But Reason No.4 (reviving Leftism)which you speculate as the REAL reason, is too far fetched.
>>
I think I have a case. Note that the ex-detainees have a very strong base support. One of which happens to be
Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry (SCCCI).
The memorial commemorating the passing of Tan Jing Quee (one of the early Leftists) was held at SCCCI - MEMORIAL GATHERING FOR THE LATE MR TAN JING QUEE
Why was the SCCCI so willing to hold it? Especially when it knows that Tan Jing Quee was an ex-ISD detainee?
Compare this situation where SHRI kicked SFD out of its premise when it found out the SFD was to hold a political forum - SFD, it was your own fault SHRI kicked you out"
In 1987, when the Marxists were detained, I didn't believe the PAP an iota. However, since this year, after I have made more detailed research, I begin to feel that there is a smoking gun. Here are some facts to consider.
In the 1981 Anson by-Election, JBJ got into Parliament. That's the first ever opposition since the collapse of Barisan more than 20 years earlier.
In 1984, there was a swing against PAP, and JBJ and Chiam got in. After 1984, the Socialist Left seeing this swing, could have been planning to make a comeback.
The late 1980s was also the end of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall collapsed, USSR broke up and the Eastern Bloc was no more.
Communism was on the decline. So why would the PAP be so panicky about some Marxists taking over S'pore?
Simple. PAP probably sensed that the Socialist Left in Singapore was set to build another Barisan party to take advantage of the ground swing.
So the ISA probably was used as a political tool against political opponents in 1987.
For me, I have no problem if SCCCI supports a Socialist Left party. I also have no problem if Teo Soh Lung heads a Leftist party next GE. After all, Spore is a democratic country. If the people put them in, I will accept the decision of the majority.
My grouse is that these Socialist Leftists are not honest enough to say it straight in our faces they want to make a comeback.
As for the ISA detentions itself, I think PAP has gone overboard detaining them when PAP panicked.
=====
Elaine,
The problem with Teo Soh Lung and gang is that they do not have the confidence that their ideology of a Socialist Left in Spore will go down well with the electorate. So they are worming their way in this one.
That is what I see in this whole ex-ISA detainees episode.
I think one fundamental problem with this piece (and the related pieces) out of several is the fact that the writer sees "ex-ISA detainees" as a homogeneous group.
The wave of arrests under the ISA undoubtedly picked up genuine communist terrorists but also many others who never advocated violence nor breached any laws. There were union leaders, students, politicians, social workers, lawyers and intellectuals.
In the case of the earlier arrests, many were fighting for Singapore independence from colonial rule and there is much documentation that they wanted a Singapore independent of Britain, China and even Malaya (in fact, any student of history will know that Operation Cold Store was launched to arrest those OPPOSED to the merger with Malaysia that the PAP wanted).
One poignant moment at Tan Jing Quee's memorial was when an elderly lady stood up from the audience to explain why she came. Her late husband had been a Barisan MP who was detained. She said she did not want her grandchildren to continue to have the impression that they were "bad people" when all they were trying to do was to contribute to Singapore through lawful means. Indeed, the characteristic of ISA is that those detained are not given the chance to defend themselves in a court of law.
I am not sure that it is rational (or perhaps even ethical) to ascribe sinister motives to those, many in their 70s and 80s, who only want their experience of history to be recorded and recognised.
>>the fact that the writer sees "ex-ISA detainees" as a homogeneous group.
>>
Absolutely not! That's exactly why I say the group of EX-detainees should NEVER forget the CURRENT group, ie the JI detainees. But they seem to forget, no? And that's exactly my point!
If they want to say that ISA is oppressive and should be removed, it should be applied to ALL groups of detainees, and NOT themselves ONLY.
Who's the one who sees that ISA detainees is homogeneous, such that if another group falls outside their own group, they don't deserve the same campaign and lobby to be free from ISA?
>>The wave of arrests under the ISA undoubtedly picked up genuine communist terrorists but also many others who never advocated violence nor breached any laws. There were union leaders, students, politicians, social workers, lawyers and intellectuals.
>>
Look at who's the one maintaining homogeneity. Where's the lobby for JI detainees?
>>In the case of the earlier arrests, many were fighting for Singapore independence from colonial rule and there is much documentation that they wanted a Singapore independent of Britain, China and even Malaya (in fact, any student of history will know that Operation Cold Store was launched to arrest those OPPOSED to the merger with Malaysia that the PAP wanted).
>>
According to Teo Soh Lung's words, Tan Jing Quee envisioned a unified Msia/Spore under Socialist banner. So it may have been that the Barisan didn't want a merger under BN and not against the merger per se.
That said, I feel that whether one wants to fight for freedom from Brit, Msia, whatever, that itself should not be reason for detention. But if one instigates riots (like Lim Chin Siong etc), then they should be charged in court - and not be detained under ISA.
>>One poignant moment at Tan Jing Quee's memorial was when an elderly lady stood up from the audience to explain why she came. Her late husband had been a Barisan MP who was detained. She said she did not want her grandchildren to continue to have the impression that they were "bad people" when all they were trying to do was to contribute to Singapore through lawful means. Indeed, the characteristic of ISA is that those detained are not given the chance to defend themselves in a court of law.
>>
I don't wish to disrespect the deceased. But that sounds like a sob story to me.
What if Mas Selamat's wife did the same? Would you buy it? If not, what's so special about Jing Quee?
Point here is that there was no charge. Bcos of that, we don't know the truth, bcos both sides are now making claims and they're not under oath.
>>I am not sure that it is rational (or perhaps even ethical) to ascribe sinister motives to those, many in their 70s and 80s, who only want their experience of history to be recorded and recognised.
>>
If that is the case, then it really has nothing to do with the ISA itself. It is all about being wrongly detained under the ISA. But the existence ISA itself shouldn't be an issue.
Is that OK with the detainees?
If yes, stop the hypocritical cry that ISA is against Human Rights, and concentrate only on the fact that they were wrongly detained under the ISA. We can work out from there - like a re-write of history, apology for wrong use of ISA (but NOT abolishing ISA bcos that's not the issue), and perhaps compensation.
If it is not OK and they still insist that ISA be removed because it contravenes Human Rights, pls show sincerity by campaigning for another grp of non-homogeneous ISA detainees, namely the JI detainees.
Pick your choice. You can't have it both ways and not look like saying one thing and doing another.
In short, that's the crux of my main point in the main post.
Thanks for the response Barrie.
I'm trying to understand your argument on this issue, which you clearly have strong feelings about.
In your response, you felt the ex-detainees were being hypocritical in "campaigning against the existence of the ISA" under the guise of "campaigning for wrongful detention under the ISA".
Are both necessarily mutually exclusive? Couldn't an ex-detainee want to recover his good name AND overturn a law he feels is unfair so that no one else would befall the same fate? Wouldn't it be only reasonable to expect an association (and some "fuzziness") between the two objectives?
You also mentioned several times how it seemed hypocritical that the activists did not campaign for the JI detainees.
I am struggling to see the logic and hope that you can help me.
From what I have seen, the campaign was for the repeal of the ISA legislation and did not involve lobbying for any specific groups. It is interesting to note that the signatories in the public letter seeking a repeal came from those who were detained over a span of several decades, from the colonial period till 1987.
If any particular group was mentioned (e.g., the "Marxist conspirators" or those arrested under Operation Cold Store), it would seem that this was only because the individuals had the knowledge through personal experience that injustices were committed in these cases.
Should a Commission of Inquiry confirm one or more cases of injustice in the earlier detainees, then the ramifications would of course also extend to the more recent detainees.
With a repeal, the JI detainees would have to be charged in court under the Sedition Act, Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, Vandalism Act, the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act, the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act, or a host of other laws in our arsenal.
I have strong faith that our courts will keep dangerous criminals off our streets and release those who are innocent.
Would that not be a much better outcome? And are we losing perspective when we gloss over the actual issue on hand (the ISA) while trying so hard to find sinister motives?
If Ex-detainees want public support, they hv to be clear. Are they claiming:
1. ISA is against Human Rights & unconstitutional, hence, they have been wrongfully detained in an unconstitutional manner.
2. The arrest itself is wrong, regardless ISA is unconsti or not.
3. Both
If #1, then ALL detainees have been wronged, past and current - JI detainees included.
If #2, what are they asking? Compensation? Rewrite of history to clear names? Pls state clearly so public can decide to support or not.
If #3, again, all detainees have been wronged. Why silence on JI detainees?
To say it is against HR and unconsti, yet do about nothing for JI detainees, looks like they are only interested in selves, and they are just using HR/consti as excuse to prove their point.
This to me is implicit admission all allegations against them by govt are true, and they are going on technicality (ie against HR/consti) to undo the "bad name" they have been given.
It is like the drug pusher arguing hanging is against HR, but shows no remorse for his crime.
U posted:
>>If any particular group was mentioned (e.g., the "Marxist conspirators" or those arrested under Operation Cold Store), it would seem that this was only because the individuals had the knowledge through personal experience that injustices were committed in these cases.
>>
So exactly what are the injustices? That ISA is wrong? Why the silence on JI detainees then?
That they were tortured? Then why bring up ISA? U mean if tortured and charged, it won't be an issue? What's with the torture claim against ISA? Torture itself is against HR, ISA or no ISA!
Or is it they have been wrongly accused of planning to create civil unrest? Is so, what has ISA got to do with it? You mean to say if they had been charged for whatever crimes, they would gladly accept?
To say ISA is bad, yet do nothing about JI detainees does not make sense. It is like anti-death penalty lobbyists who lobby so hard for hardcore criminals not to be hanged, yet did nothing when Saddam Hussein was hanged.
Why double standards? U mean to say real monster baddies like Saddam deserve to be hanged? Then you shoot self in foot! So u agree that Death Penalty has its purpose!
Likewise, by ignoring JI detainees, r u not implying that it is OK for them to be detained w/o trial bcos terror is bad? Shot self in foot again, no? U just agreed with govt that detention w/o trial has its purpose!
>>And are we losing perspective when we gloss over the actual issue on hand (the ISA) while trying so hard to find sinister motives?
>>
It must be remembered that I quoted Teo Soh Lung's words. I did not make it up.
She supports Jing Quee's ideal - ie he wanted to unify Spore/Msia under the Socialist banner.
Pls remember Chin Peng, who led the Malayan Communist Party in Msia, is considered a terrorist - even till today!
TSL supports JQ, who supports Chin Peng, a Comm terrorist who resorted to terror tactics to displace the govt of the day at that time. Technically, she is in same boat as JI detainees.
Are other detainees with her on this? We don't know. They were not tried in court.
I didn't imagine what she supports. Those words are hers. Not mine.
Now why must she be given special privilege to be allowed to clear her name, when she is already a free woman, while there are current detainees still held under the same ISA for the same reason - ie supporting terror ideals?
Finally, U said if ex-detainees manage to get ISA abolished, JI detainees would be put on trial automatically. True. But wouldn't it be easier to argue the case for JI detainees bcos they are currently locked up, than to argue for 20-40 yr old cases that's closed?
But if we did that, ex-detainees won't get to re-write history, nor would they hv advanced their Socialist campaign.
Isn't that the real issue they hv in mind, rather than ISA or HR itself?
All this debate here is unnecessary if only the govt would do as the SA- have a truth and reconciliation commission to sort out the truths from the half-truths and down right lies.
I am very sure that the ex-detainees would surely go for it but not the govt. That in itself speaks volumes about which party feels the guilt most. I am also very sure that the govt would unilaterally initiate any such hearing if it feels it has nothing to hide.
Under LKY as PM, it had arrogantly thought that with its absolute control over things any public proceedings would ALWAYS go its way. But it didn't. How many remember those televised proceedings involving even the chief justice Wee Chong Jin then? The ugly truth was absolutely denied but it and the obvious bullying and browbeating of witnesses came across CRYSTAL CLEAR to the TV viewers on the faces of all the govt officials including LKY on national TV. LKY learnt his lesson well - that is why he would never allow a repeat of such a televised farce as long as he is around. His son and his party has a lot more to lose in this day and age. It could even be a disaster for the PAP.
His doing and the demeanor of his party members , like the prince of darkness, Dracula, can never face the light of day.
From what I see, this is the exact game the ex-detainees are playing and hope to convince the public.
On one side, we have Goliath the mean PAP machine with the ISA behind them. On the other side, David, the underdog. The idea is to get sympathy from the public to campaign their cause.
I am not convinced. To me, the ISA issue is about the right to defend oneself.
So if we want to abolish ISA, we have to talk about ALL WRONGs done to people who have been and/or are detained without trial. Not just a certain special "elite and intellectual" group of ex-detainees, yet total hypocritical silence on current ones.
I am not going to be dragged into the sympathy game these ex-detainees are trying to play up for themselves, using their sob story card.
Thanks Barrie. But there seems to be some fairly tenuous leaps of logic in your position.
If someone says that the ISA is wrong because it allows for detention without trial, then of course this would apply to all detainees (including recent JI ones).
Wouldn't it be a better scenario (and the mark of a civilised nation) if all detainees, including suspected JI, are charged in court?
If they are guilty, then they can be sentenced to imprisonment and even death. If they are found innocent, then they can be released.
Under the ISA, the court has no say over a person's guilt and there is little public transparency. There is also the risk of abuse of the law.
In the ISA debate so far, the one clear thing that the activists want seems to be repeal of the law.
Must there be a material or personal benefit like you mentioned? Or can a person not campaign against something that he or she perceives to be unfair from a moral standpoint?
And shouldn't Singaporeans make a decision on whether to support the repeal based on their own moral compass and the facts relating to the issue? It is not unlikely that different people want a repeal of the law for different reasons. Should it even be relevant?
Your other paragraphs are somewhat convoluted and confusing so I haven't commented on them as they do not seem to be connected to the argument in any salient way. You seem to be dropping words and phrases (JI, Chin Peng, Saddam) to try to hint at "guilt by association", which is not really fair.
"Argument by fear" is as bad as "playing the sympathy game", if not worse.
In any case, I really haven't seen any ex-detainee playing the "sympathy card" till now. From the interviews on the news and in their writings, one can actually see their reluctance to talk about their own plights, focusing instead on a higher and more moral issue.
I am not personally involved in the issue but so far, I feel that the ex-detainees deserve our respect and not our scorn.
The diff between you and me is that I see all ISA detainees, past and present have been wronged. I make no distinction between past and present detainees.
You, on the other hand, have bought the sob story of the past group, such that you feel one group (the elite group of lawyers, academics etc) deserve more attention than other group (JI detainees).
As for JI, Chin Peng and even Saddam, are these parties not in one way or another, at one time or another, linked to terror activities, alleged by one govt or another?
You can't make the link?
Stop buying the sob story of the ex-detainees, and you will see the link, and you will be able to judge better.
Thanks Barrie. I am sure the differences between us extend far beyond this one point alone.
I do appreciate your effort at defending your views. A reader should be able to get a good feel of the consistency, clarity and honesty of our opposing points of view from the article and the past few posts.
Barrie, you obviously have an axe to grind with SDP. I have no doubt about that.
Teo Soh Lung has said before that ISA must be abolished because people continue to be detained without trial. She has also said that the government has never released a full list of just how many people have been detained by ISA and how many people are currently detained. Of those that she knows that have been detained and are detained, she has released their names on her Facebook page. This includes Mas Selamat and the names of other accused "JL" detainees. Teo Soh Lung has discussed her concern about the people who continue to be in detention.
Teo Soh Lung and the many people who want to see ISA abolished, fight for all, whether they are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Chinese, Indians, Malays, or "Others".
I myself have said time and time again that as long as Mas Selamat is not given a fair trial, then he was never a terrorist and is not one. I am sure many who want to see ISA abolished will share the same sentiment.
Why do people like you not join the fight to see the end of ISA? Instead, what I see is deliberate attempts to pick on Dr. Chee, Teo Soh Lung, and SDP. Never mind if what you say are just half-truths. You take words, you dissect them, and then you present how you want your audience to receive the information. However, the whole truth is never conveyed. You are simply a tool of the PAP government, helping them to paint the SDP as evil, as incompetent, as "whacked". The SDP, Dr. Chee, Teo Soh Lung, and the likes are not what you try to show them to be. However, you and your kind are. It is sad though. It is sad that you would relentlessly try to bring down a good party. A party that truly wants to help the people, with no agenda other than it's the right thing to do. God will prevail, I believe.
I have spoken up for CSJ when there's a need to - here. Excerpts I wrote:
============
The point Chee was making is that by entering a summary judgement, Chee was deprived of defending himself in an open trial, such that he could not question Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong and Goh Chok Tong (the plaintiffs) who would then be UNDER OATH to tell the truth, the whole stinking truth, and nothing but the whole darn stinking truth.
So why were the plaintiffs not put on the stand to take oath, so that Chee could truly defend himself, instead of listening to some assertion from some questionable affidavit filed by the Lees and Goh?
==========
As for Teo Soh Lung, you can claim whatever. I am reading what she posts. All along, when she talks about ISA, it is always up to 1987 detainees.
As for me dissecting her words, why not? You expect politicians to say, "People, I have Agenda X, but please pretend that I am fighting for you."?
If you want the people's support, expect the people to scrutinize every detail. After all, after the voting day, there's nothing the people could do anymore. What is so wrong about dissecting politicians' words? I did the same for PAPpy candidates, yet you didn't complain.
As for joining the fight to abolish ISA, blogging and use of New Media IS a form of activism. Didn't the S377A got debated in Parliament because of that? Didn't Pink Dot organise throught the net?
Isn't anti-war activism also spread through internet? How do you think I got all the resources about lies and deceit about this "war on terror"?
I am against ISA and I am against "war on terror". I have been consistent.
I would like to see Teo Soh Lung (and other detainees) be just as consistent.
Finally, how about addressing the point Teo Soh Lung made about his support for Tan Jing Quee, who in turn appeared to be supporting a Unified Marxist Spore/Msia?
Who did Jing Quee have in mind, other than Communist Terrorist Chin Peng of the CPM? - ISA Arrests - who did Tan Jing Quee have in mind to link up with, in the North?
Care to address that?
Isn't that what Tan Jing Quee, Teo Soh Lung and Co got into trouble to start with?
Post a Comment