Life in my prison cell under ISA detention

by Teo Soh Lung

Watching Channel News Asia last week, I was quite amused at Alcatraz Hotel in UK providing a prison cell for its guests. I wonder what the hotel owner had in mind.

I have written about the days of interrogation in the cold room. Let me now describe the small prison cell in Whitley Road Centre. This prison complex was gazetted as a prison with effect from 21 April 1989. I don’t know what it was before it was gazetted. I know that the complex was used by the ISD to house political prisoners as early as the 1970s. I happened to visit an ISA detainee at the visitor’s room at the complex in 1977. Maybe it was just a holding centre for I have heard former ISA detainees referring to it as the Whitley Holding Centre. Anyone who is interested to know the location of Whitley prison complex can go to Google Map and search for Whitley Road Centre. You will be able to see the layout of the prison complex.

A few days ago, I read in My Paper that Minister Teo Chee Hean was the guest of honour at the 10th anniversary celebration of the ISD Heritage Centre. I have always wondered where this Heritage Centre is located and only just realised that it is at Onraet Road. I am of course very familiar with Onraet Road. A Dutch friend told me that Onraet is a Dutch word meaning “Horrible or something disastrous.” The Whitley prison is located off Onraet Road, at the top of a slope. The Heritage Centre is therefore within walking distance from the famous Blue Gate (which is on the cover of my book) that opens to the prison complex. I do not know if visitors to the Heritage Centre will also be given a tour of the Whitley Road Prison. It would definitely be educational. Incidentally, behind the prison complex is the Bukit Brown Chinese Cemetery. I don’t know if the complex will be demolished for the construction of the highway soon. Maybe it should be preserved for posterity since there is the Heritage Centre nearby.

When the “Marxist conspirators” were first arrested in 1987, some of us were given the luxury of big cells which ISD officers called the “Shangrila Suites”. Half the cell is exposed to the sky and it is really quite nice. Sleeping in the yard and watching the birds take their first flight across the iron bars at the break of dawn is an experience I will never forget. But not all were so lucky. Some were confined to cells measuring about 6ft (w) x 10ft (l) x 8ft (h) with slits for air. Some of these small cells have old noisy ventilators which provide some air.

The cells in Whitley Road Centre are, I am told by earlier generations of detainees, miles better than the horrendous cells unfit for human beings in Central Police Station, Robinson Road Police Station, Queenstown Prison and Outram Prison. I am told they were exceedingly filthy and inhabited by bugs, cockroaches and rats. All have been demolished.

In 1988, when eight of us were rearrested and the ninth arrested for the first time, all were thrown into these small cells. I guess the ISD was really angry and felt that we deserved the worst treatment possible! I survived 86 days in such a cell. Wong Souk Yee broke the record by being in the small cell for the longest period of time. The guys were shifted to Shangrila suites weeks before the two of us. I think the ISD blamed the women more than the men for the joint statement! Or maybe the officers were just plain male chauvinists! Or perhaps they were so used to discriminating against anyone they disliked that it did not occur to them that there was anything wrong with such a practice. After all, ISA detainees have only one right - the right to food. That was what I was told by a senior male officer.

During the 9 days when I was interrogated in the cold room, there was no time to ponder over discomfort or hygiene. Each morning at about 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. or 4 a.m., I would fall asleep on the dusty, dirty concrete block with a wooden top without any effort. Even a huge spider hanging down the ceiling didn’t worry me. Waking up at 6 or 7 in the morning was a problem. The realisation that I was back in prison, not knowing what would happen next and how long my friends and I would be there was terrifying. My heart literally sank to my feet when I realised where I was!

Forget about the prison cell in Alcatraz Hotel. The cells in Whitley are dirty, deliberately kept dirty. The prison authority don’t wash the cells before the arrival of new inmates! The walls of the cell is black or dark grey and covered with the spattered blood of mosquitoes. A 4ft long fluorescent tube is turned on whenever a prisoner is in the cell. The pillow and blanket are smelly. The prison door is heavy and is locked from the outside. The door has a small peep hole that can be shut from the outside. In some cells, a drawbridge window that can be opened from the outside allowed food to be shuffled in and shut again. The cell is hot, especially during the dry season from April to June where bush fires are common. And so within the four walls, the prisoner had to tame her mind. That was when I realised what Lord Buddha was talking about when he likened the mind to a wheel of fire! It was really a wheel of fire!

There was nothing to do in the cell during the early days – no books or newspapers to read. A prisoner simply stared at the four walls, ate 3 meals, went to the toilet and to the exercise yard for 10 minutes every day. I learnt to kill mosquitoes with great skill. The minute I heard the buzz of the creatures, I would wake and sit waiting for the bites. The way to kill mosquitoes is not to whack from a distance, for the gush of air would enable them to take off. It is to wait for them to sink their proboscis into the flesh and whack at very close distance! Sometimes they slip out of the gaps between the fingers. So the best way to prevent that was to hold on to toilet paper. Bukit Brown Chinese Cemetery is healthy breeding ground for mosquitoes and they never seem to learn about the danger of entering a prison cell! And so for most of us, we learn the art of killing mosquitoes.

Safeguards? No way of safeguarding us against ferocious mosquitoes!

But why is 30 days termed a safeguard under the ISA? Is it because it is an improvement over the 60 days in Malaysia? I do not know how this magical period can be a safeguard when imprisonment and investigation under the ISA can go on forever, depending on the whims and fancies of the ministers and the ISD. In recent months, I happened to talk to a former police personnel who had read my book. He was amazed that ISD officers had so much time to investigate my case. He told me that in criminal matters, investigations are usually completed within 48 hours. The alleged criminals are either charged in court or released. So why are ISD officers permitted to have all the time in the world to investigate a case? Is it because the ISA allows them to do so with immunity? Or is it because there is actually no crime to investigate. I would like to know the real reason from the Honourable Minister.

And about the Heritage Centre – I wonder if it showcases a replica of the cold room with those spotlights that blind the prisoners as well as the pre-1987 days when I am told, ISD officers used electrodes, buckets of ice water and all those deplorable torture instruments. When I was in New York, the city that recently received the Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize 2012, the police museum showed all the torture instruments used by the police. To be world class, I hope this Heritage Centre will do the same.

---------------------------------
 
Additional readings :
 
Political detention in Singapore : Prisoner case histories
The ISA as a political tool
Life in Singapore's political prisons
Surviving long-term detention without trial
Detention of journalists and lawyers under the ISA

Open letter to Teo Chee Hean on ISA safeguards

by Teo Soh Lung

My last response to Minister Teo Chee Hean’s speech in parliament that was reported in The Straits Times of 20 October 2011 was made on 9 November 2011. The sub-title to that reply was Making use of the Church and it drew a number of pretty angry comments. In between then and now, I was somehow distracted by other issues. The news-cuttings of Minister Teo’s memorable speech however, has not been misplaced all these months. It has suffered some severe damage under the claws of my cat, Angel though. She was probably more angry at the speech than me!

As the 25 anniversary of the 1987 arrest of “Marxist conspirators” approaches, I want to demolish once and for all Minister Teo’s specious assurance that there are sufficient safeguards under the ISA. These safeguards are summarised in The Straits Times at page A33 and I shall deal with them in the order set out by its writer or editors.

Only 30 days

The first safeguard is that a person can only be held for 30 days after which the minister or rather the cabinet have to decide if he or she should be issued the Order of Detention for a maximum of two years, renewable at the end of the period or released unconditionally or be subjected to a Restriction Order i.e. subject to conditions, such as restriction of movement or association.

I want to emphasise that 30 days in a prison cell or in a freezing cold room is not 30 days spent in one’s own house. Try putting the minister in a freezing cold room with two spotlights shining into his eyes. He is a military man and he should be able to take the cold better than me. Let him wear the prison garb of cotton top and trousers without his underwear. Make him stand 50 hours out of 72 hours in that room and subject him to continuous interrogation. Let ISD officers shout at him and tell him that everything he said are lies and that he is just good at telling fairy tales. Deprive him of sleep for just three days and nights.

If the minister survives these 72 hours (ISD officers don’t even need to lay hands on him) without making and signing a false statement, then he has my greatest admiration and respect.

From my experience and the experience of my friends, no one can survive three days and nights of continuous interrogation in a cold room in the basement of Whitley Detention Centre. From his account in To catch a Tartar, Mr Francis Seow, the former Solicitor-General could not too. I can say with confidence that even the director of ISD will not be able to withstand 72 hours of continuous interrogation in that cold room. Anyone in Singapore who can survive such treatment without writing a false statement, must either be a hardcore criminal or an imbecile who cannot write a statement no matter how he is threatened.

The cold room treatment is not the only experience all ISA detainees go through. For nearly a week, none of us was allowed contact with the outside world. On the sixth day, two family members were allowed to visit us. Imagine the panic caused to our families when they discover their children, spouses, brothers and sisters missing for 6 long days in a first world country. In this regard, ISA prisoners are accorded treatment worse than ordinary criminals for the latter are at least allowed to be produced in court within 48 hours and family members are informed of their whereabouts by the police.

30 days for ISD officers to investigate a conspiracy or fabricate a conspiracy is a long time. I thought we have the brightest scholars working in the ISD? Why do they need 30 days to decide whether to detain a prisoner or release him? Surely by the end of three days, they would have completed their investigation and either slam the order of detention on them or release them. Why do they need to fully utilise the 30 days allowed by the law? Is it to unnecessarily punish the innocent prisoner or is it because they are so inefficient or so daft that they cannot complete their investigation?

But if they are not able to complete their investigation, how is it that they could produce a script for detainees to appear on state television three weeks after our arrest? Shouldn’t they be putting all their attention on investigating our “crimes” rather than turn us into television stars? Worse, we or at least I was told that if I didn’t appear on television, they would “throw away the key,” meaning I would languish in jail for a very long time.

I shall pause here and continue at a later date because I feel sick remembering what 30 days mean to an ISA detainee. The ISA in allowing a person to be detained for 30 days is not providing him with any safeguard. Rather, the law in allowing 30 days for investigation is granting ISD officers and the government more than adequate time to fabricate a story for public consumption, to instil fear in them and to unnecessarily punish and intimidate a detainee.

--------------------------------------------------------------

While the whereabouts of the “Marxist conspirators” were unknown to their families for six days when they were arrested by the ISD at the dawn of 21 May 1987, the whereabouts of eight of us together with lawyer Patrick Seong on 19 April 1988 after the issue of the joint statement denying the government’s accusations and confirming ill treatment were unknown for more than ten days. Then Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence BG Lee Hsien Loong was so angry that he described the joint statement as a “full frontal attack on the integrity, honesty and reputation of the government.” Acting Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said: “They threw a hand grenade in our face. They were not out to seek redress for the alleged torture. They were out to harm the Government and to harm our political stability.” So even though the restriction orders did not prohibit us from issuing the joint statement, we were all re-arrested the following morning. It is laughable that an intelligent minister like Goh had to use the phrase “threw a hand grenade in our face.” What hand grenade was he talking about? Violence exude not from us who were and are law abiding peaceful citizens who did not and do not possess any weapon, but from the minister. Was he “rebel rousing” (to use the words of the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew) the public by such words?

A day after our re-arrest, the Ministry of Home Affairs announced that the government would set up a Commission of Inquiry. Senior lawyers, Francis Seow and J B Jeyaretnam as well as Chiam See Tong of the Singapore Democratic Party welcomed the setting up of the Commission albeit with certain conditions so as to ensure independence. Chiam cautioned that all of us should be freed before the hearing so that we would not be under any form of duress.

Four days later, Goh Chok Tong informed the public that the Attorney General had been instructed to draft the terms of reference for the Commission which were:

(1) Whether the Marxist conspiracy was a government fabrication.

(2) The circumstances under which eight detainees retracted their previous statements.

(3) Their charges that they were assaulted and tortured during detention last year.

While the ministers were busy issuing public statements to justify the arrests, ISD officers were hard at work in the cold rooms.

For days and nights, the 9 detainees were interrogated in the basement of Whitley Road Centre. “Who was the leader? Who instigated the drafting of the statement? Who drafted the statement? Who typed the statement? Where were the meetings held? What were the reasons for the statement? … ” On reflection today, those were strange national security questions. Why was it necessary to find the author of the joint statement? All of us who signed it must be held equally responsible for it. There were no two ways of attributing responsibility. And strangely, we weren’t asked if we had planted bombs at the Istana or behind Parliament House or attempted to throw any hand grenade at any minister.

We were told to write statements and then to sign statutory declarations. Those who refused were advised to "think of the others." Words like “I know you don’t mind being detained, but think of the others. If you don’t sign the statutory declaration, the others will not be freed”. Those were strong persuasive or threatening words to one in the cold room. Those words coming from senior ISD officers cannot be taken lightly. In the end, all 9 detainees signed statutory declarations before a commissioner for oaths. Some who were ill treated, retracted their statements and swore false statutory declarations, subjecting themselves to prosecution. They regretted doing that subsequently but what else could they do? Get out and be useful citizens again or rot in prison like Dr Chia Thye Poh for 32 years? Already we were “martyrs without a cause” as one of the detainees puts it. Why do we want to make such huge sacrifices? Others who refused to retract that they were beaten up, omitted the deeds of ISD officers by not making any mention on how they were treated.

ISD officers were also busy with former detainees who were released on restriction orders. At least 5 of them had to swear statutory declarations after hours of “interviews” at Phoenix Park. And sadly, despite the co-operation, one of them was subsequently also re-arrested.

Any fair-minded person would have ignored sworn statements made by the 9 detainees. But that was not the case. Goh Chok Tong and Professor S Jayakumar, the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (and a professor of Constitutional Law) proudly declared on the 10th day after our re-arrests that the statutory declarations had made it unnecessary for the setting up of the Commission of Inquiry. They told the public that we had retracted the charges made in our joint statement. As such, there was no longer a need for the Commission of Inquiry! That was it!

The government having concluded their business, the families of the detainees were finally allowed to visit them. It was already the 11th day after arrest/re-arrests. Patrick Seong who was arrested for the first time, was (I think) also not allowed to see his family until the 11th day. During the 11 days, I understand, he was taken to the hospital. Under ordinary criminal law, a person who is accused of committing a crime or re-offends must be produced in court within 48 hours and arrangements for family visits made soon after. ISA detainees can be held incommunicado for as long as the ISD deems fit. The ministers and the ISD decide everything.

And what about improvement in living conditions since we had all co-operated? There was none. We continued to be locked up in those 6ft x 10ft cells with smelly pillows and blankets.

Where were the members of the Board of Inspection during those 11 days? Were there any safeguards?

Judicial review of preventive detention

by Teo Soh Lung

An excerpt of Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong’s lecture delivered at the Rule of Law Symposium on 15 February 2012 was published in TODAY on 21 February 2012. At least three friends drew my attention to the article that morning because my case was cited in the speech. I was not particularly interested in the speech but read it when I was given a copy. Perhaps because it was just an excerpt, I didn’t find it particularly noteworthy, except for the fact that it was probably the first time my case was mentioned in the press after more than 20 years.

The Chief Justice in disagreeing with the interpretation of some academics who expressed the view that there is no judicial review in preventive detention said: “But Teo’s appeal … was dismissed on the ground that she had failed to discharge the burden of proving that her re-detention was not based on national security considerations.”

What then is the burden of proof on a ISA prisoner? Having attempted to get out of prison through four rounds of litigation, I can confirm that the burden is very, very heavy and I would not encourage anyone to take the same course unless he is prepared not to succeed. Even with simple facts and the best lawyers, as were the facts and lawyers who acted for me, I did not succeed. I have set out in detail the obstacles I faced in my book, Beyond the Blue Gate, Recollections of a Political Prisoner and I will not repeat what I said there.

It is interesting that there was a symposium to discuss the rule of law two decades after my case was decided. During those two decades, 79 people have been detained under the ISA but none of the detainee had challenged the legality of their imprisonment. The lesson learnt from my case had probably sunk so deep that no one had thought it wise to attempt what I did!

As of today, there are at least 19 people who are still in prison under the ISA. At least eight of them have been in prison for ten years or more. We know nothing about these prisoners. The Advisory Board which periodically review their plight do not tell us why these eight continue to be in prison. The Justices of Peace who visit them have also said nothing. So we remain ignorant of the plight of these unknown men who we are told by the Minister for Home Affairs, are all Muslims. Will they one day in the future, try to clear their names, like the 1987 “Marxist conspirators” are trying to do 25 years after the event? I don’t know.

Coming back to the subject of judicial review and the rule of law. What is the burden that a prisoner must discharge before he can succeed in persuading the courts to free him? Let me discuss this subject with reference to the facts in my case.

When I was first arrested on 21 May 1987, the government alleged that I was a ”Marxist conspirator”, whatever that term meant. A decade earlier, in 1977, those arrested were called “Euro-communists”. The PAP government are masters at crafting names that instil great fear in law abiding citizens.

I was accused of being a participant in a conspiracy to overthrow the government using “communist united front tactics”. Again, whatever that meant, only the PAP can clarify. I didn't know the meaning of "communist united front tactics" when I first read the grounds of detention and asked my case officer what it was all about. He was taken aback by my question. Until today, I still do not know what the term refers to. It may be clear to historians who are in the habit of writing PAP history but not those who question if there was indeed such a tactic.

I was released a few months after but in April 1988, together with eight others, I issued a joint statement denying the government’s allegations of a conspiracy and confirming that we were subjected to physical and mental abuse. The next day, we were rearrested.

I took out an application for habeas corpus soon after. Both Lord Lester QC and the Late Lord Alexander QC were optimistic that I would succeed because the reason for my rearrest was so clearly related to the issue of the joint statement, which was of course, an exercise of free speech. Between the date I was released and the date of my rearrest, Singapore enjoyed great peace as was the case even before my arrest. There was not even a peaceful protest on the street. I was back in legal practice trying to make a decent living during those months.

In December 1988, the court of appeal which comprised the Chief Justice and two other judges refused to adjudicate on the facts of my case. It ruled that the government did not comply with a technicality (which technicality was not even argued by my lawyers) and ordered my release together with my three friends. The appeal judges talked about the importance of judicial review and the rule of law but refused to make a ruling on the facts of my case. Needless to say, I was completely shattered shortly after because I was rearrested immediately after being tricked out of the prison gate.

The government then proceeded to amend the ISA and the Constitution. The intention of the amendments was clear to me – that the government would not tolerate judicial review and would have nothing to do with the rule of law, at least in ISA cases. It said so through the Public Prosecutor, Mr Tiwari : “The expression ‘rule of law’ has no defined or definable content and it would be wrong for judges to defeat the clear intent of Parliament by reference to such vague concepts…”

If the courts had wanted to protect their judicial power, it could have done so by agreeing with Lord Lester’s submission that parliament had no power to amend the Constitution in a manner which violates its basic structure by usurping judicial power which is vested solely in the judiciary. The courts for reasons that I will never know, failed to do so. By failing to do so, I can only assume that it did not want to retain such power, at least in ISA cases and would prefer the government to have a free hand. The government was of course happy to have judicial power. In October 2011, Deputy Prime Minister, Teo Chee Hean said:

“…giving the final say on what constitutes a serious threat to national security to a judge would in effect mean that the judge rather than the Government becomes responsible for, and answerable for decisions affecting the national security of Singapore.

In Singapore, this responsibility and accountability to act to protect national security is placed in the hands of the Government…” (ST 20 Oct 2011).

Would more symposiums and dialogues on the rule of law be of any use for the future. Simon Chesterman, the dean of the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law seemed to think so. (ST 22 Feb 2012). Maybe. More discussions may clarify what judicial review and the rule of law is all about and give courage to whoever needs to make a bold decision. But will such an opportunity arise?

-------------------

Judges do justice, not politics: CJ Chan : Straits Times

A judicial view of preventive detention by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong

Video : The Price of Freedom in Singapore

"I believe, with history as our guide, our people will be free one day," says political exile Francis Khoo is this rare clip from the BBC made presumably in the late 70s.




For the record, the following:

The local journalist mentioned at the start of the clip was probably Ho Kwon Ping.

A memorial for Francis Khoo was held in Singapore last week. In attendance was his wife Dr Ang Swee Chai, whom the Government gave permission to re-enter the country after 35 years in exile with her husband. Dr Ang also gave two public talks at SGH and NUH before she left for Britain on Sunday.

The Vanda Miss Joaquim was selected as Singapore's national flower in 1981, after the broadcast of this clip.

On Dr Toh Chin Chye

by Dr Poh Soo Kai

Dr. Toh was an anti-colonial student in his London days at the Malayan Forum.  Upon his return to the University of Malaya as a lecturer in physiology, he was one of a handful of anti-colonial members of the academic staff.  Because he came to know John Eber in London, John wired through him a cable to the University Socialist Club (USC) offering the free legal service of D. N. Pritt, Q.C. for the defence of the Fajar Sedition Trial. 

When David Marshall was in London for the first constitutional talk, he pushed on the question of independence for Singapore.  As a result, the talks floundered in the face of British reluctance.  Some members of the USC approached Dr. Toh, then chairman of the PAP, to issue a press statement in support of David Marshall’s stand. He very willingly and happily agreed. We appreciate his anti-colonial stand and his genuine show of solidarity.

Many have lauded him as a politician with democratic principles and courage to match. Some have even praised him for fighting against “elitism” and cited it as the reason for his fall from grace.

However we should examine his political life in more detail. 

Was he a politician who consistently upheld democratic principles?  His subsequent actions do not substantiate this claim.  In mid 1961, on the eve of the Anson by-election, six unionists of the left wing of the PAP issued a press release calling for the PAP leadership to end arbitrary arrests and release all detainees, lift all restrictions on the freedom and rights of the people, as well as put an end to the obstruction placed in the way of trade union unification.  The press release further invited the PAP leadership to grant the right of citizenship and franchise to all those loyal to the anti-colonial struggle and allow freedom of the press, speech, assembly and organization.  In brief, the statement called for the repeal of the draconian, totally undemocratic laws under the PPSO (today renamed the ISA). 

What was Dr. Toh’s “democratic” response?  This is history.  His anti-colonial sentiment evaporated into thin air.  He sided with our colonial masters.

This is what the London archives noted (F.O 1091/104. p.136, para 3).  The Assistant High Commissioner, Mr. P.B.C. Moore on 5 June 1961 reported:

“I asked him (LKY), therefore, what he proposed to do about the six’s statement, and whether they would be allowed to speak on the PAP platform at Anson.  To this he replied, rather surprisingly that the moment might well have come to break with Lim and Co.  I said that we had always been very chary about advising him to break with what was probably the strongest political force in Singapore.”

And again on 1 June 1961, Moore wrote, “Lee suggested that it was likely that after Anson, there would be a complete break with the six.”  (FO 1091/104, p.127 para 3)

On 11 April 1961, before PAP lost the Hong Lim by-election, the UK High Commissioner, Lord Selkirk reported:

“Lee showed at once he was concerned at the thought of having to face a general election in 1963.  If he had merger, could he avoid that election?  I said I thought he probably could, provided he went flat out for merger.”  (FO1091/104, p.150, para 3) 

On 28 June 1961 Lord Selkirk wrote:

“Lee Kuan Yew emphasized that he was anxious to have his breech with Lim Chin Siong on the subject of merger and not on the subject of the release of detainees.”  (FO 1091 / 104 p.3)

It can thus be surmised that the initiative for the breech with the left was with LKY.  The left wing was kicked out.  The left did not leave on its own volition as claimed by many.  The issue here is whether Dr. Toh Chin Chye, as the chairman of the party, could be without knowledge and responsibility?

Merger thus became the key issue.  What was Dr. Toh’s stand?  He was wholeheartedly for merger.  When Barisan Sosialis wanted the issue of our future debated and clarified in the Legislative Assembly, Dr. Toh as speaker suspended the Assembly indefinitely and was proud of his action.  Why did he deny the people of Singapore the right to know their future that is embodied in the terms of the merger?  Was it because the chairman of the PAP was, as he admitted in his interview with Melanie Chew (see “Leaders of Singapore”) that he was “in the dark” as to the terms of merger?  

On the PAP referendum of merger, he was happy to bluff and confuse the people of Singapore.  He admitted he could not understand the referendum drawn up by Lee Kuan Yew.  It was phony, but he was prepared to bamboozle his countrymen.  Think again, what sort of a man is that.

Suitability Certificate.  When the PAP with Dr. Toh as chairman introduced the suitability certificate, i.e., the security vetting of a student and his/her family’s background as a prerequisite for admission to the University of Singapore, the then Vice-Chancellor Dr. B.R. Sreenivasan had objected strenuously contending that the university would conduct no political vetting and students would be admitted on merit.  As a consequence, funds were withheld from the university and Dr. B.R. Sreenivasan, well regarded by academics around the world, was forced to resign.  In walked Dr. Toh Chin Chye, the PAP chairman, to take his place and implement the suitability certificate.  That speaks loudly of the type of “democratic” values he possessed.

Dr. Toh Chin Chye’s fight against “elitism”?  If there were ever a fight, it was not obvious.  At that time Lee Kuan Yew had wanted to put his hand-picked professionals and ex-civil servants as PAP Assembly members.  There was an understandable unhappiness among the PAP branch grass-root members, some with ambitions to become assemblypersons.  It was generally known that a small group, including Dr. Toh, Ong Pang Boon and Wee Toon Boon, was not in favour of this policy but they went no further, taking no steps to challenge LKY.  Nevertheless, LKY brood no dissent, and they were all dropped unceremoniously like hot potatoes. 

"He was crying. I don't understand him at all." - Toh Chin Chye on Lee Kuan Yew

Excerpt of an interview with Dr Toh Chin Chye, published in 'Leaders of Singapore' by Melanie Chew, 1996

August 9, 1965

I remember that morning very clearly. In the morning, I wrote a letter to Tengku. He promptly replied in the afternoon.

I stayed behind (in Kuala Lumpur) and Lee came back to announce to the public in Singapore that Singapore had become independent. I stayed behind to clear up the mess. The Malaysian Parliament was meeting the next day. Lee Kuan Yew told me to go to the Parliament. Can you imagine the uproar? I had no chance to face the members of the Malaysian Solidarity Convention to break the news. Their support for Singapore came to nothing.

When Lee Kuan Yew got back to Singapore, he invited the members of the Convention to attend his press conference. He was crying. I don't understand him at all. On one hand, he worked so hard for merger. Having gotten the cupful, he shattered it. And then cried over it.

He held two successive press conferences, and in which both he cried. On the third morning I went to work, and saw the press boys again. I asked Lee Wei Ching, his press secretary, "Why are they hanging around here?" Another press conference! I told Lee Wei Ching, "You ought to tell the Prime Minister to go to Changi and take a rest. Call the press conference off! Another crying bout, and the people of Singapore will think the government is on its knees. So he went to Changi, staying at the government bungalow for six weeks.

One smart reporter noted this by going through Hansard. There was a big time gap in Hansard between our last parliamentary meeting and the next meeting. More than five months. One would have thought with such a big event, Parliament should be immediately summoned and the announcement made to Parliament. The opposition came at me. Why is there no Parliament sitting? So I had to hold the fort.

I was not appointed to act for him while he was away. When he went off to Changi, Parliament did not meet. So Singapore had a Parliament in suspended animation. Keng Swee and Lim Kim San saw me and asked me what was the constitutional position. Has he recovered? What if he does not recover? So what happens? I said I thought he was getting better, although I could not see him and telephone calls were not put through.

Q: So after the separation, you did not have Parliamentary meetings until December?

Parliament last met on June 16th, 1965 when Singapore was still in Malaysia, and recommenced only on December 8th, 1965 after we had left Malaysia.

Q: But the appearance of government was normal. The government was still carrying on. It seemed like business as usual.

Your point is taken. In a crisis there will be public spirited figures who will rise to the occasion, for better or worse.

Only the constitutional position was unclear, because according to the constitution it was the Yang di Pertuan Negara who appoints the Prime Minister, who in turn appoints the Cabinet. The constitutional position was not clear about an absent or an incapacitated Prime Minister, and Goh Keng Swee and Lim Kim San were both anxious.

Q: Mr Lee at that time was in a very emotional state?

Yes, he was. I knew he was. And was very worried for him. That is why I told Lee Wei Ching to call the press conference off.

Q: Was he in a very emotional state because he felt he had made a blunder?

You have to interview him on that. I cannot answer for him.

Q: Could his provocative speeches have been part of a deliberate strategy?

I do not know why he did that. But he was influenced by Alex Josey, who came from the Middle East where he had been a reporter. Josey fed him ideas about the Muslims. The "Mad Mullahs." The "Ultras." Lee used the term, "Mad Mullahs." This was Alex Josey's phrase. Alex Josey was his close friend, golfing friend and biographer.

Alex used to play golf with me. He was an operator. He used to pick me up as early as five a.m., because I had no one to play golf with at that time. He was an operator, feeding me stories of his experiences with the Arabs. I had suspicions about him. Now he's dead.

Q: Lee Kuan Yew asked the Tengku to write to you to explain that it was Tengku's decision to separate.

Yes, I think that was the purpose. To tell me that it was a decision made by the Tengku.

Q: Was it because he was afraid?

So the blame would be on the Tengku's shoulder. Not on our shoulders. The Tengku was far sighted. However desirable it was to continue as one country, we could not do so. He wrote, "We cannot avoid a bloodshed if we remain."

Tengku had been in charge of multi racial Malaya since 1957. He knew, better than any of us, what was possible and impossible. The 1969 riots in Kuala Lumpur proved him right."

Video : Dr Chia Thye Poh

Detained without trial by Lee Kuan Yew's government for 32 years, Dr Chia Thye Poh was the longest-serving political prisoner of Singapore. This video documents his first public appearance since his release in 1998.


Photo : Dr Lim Hock Siew quoted by the Straits Times. Full article here.

Award for Asia’s ‘forgotten’ man

School honours ex-Jurong MP, confined under Singapore’s ISA for 33 years

RAM ANAND
Monday, December 19th, 2011 14:05:00

Malay Mail

KUALA LUMPUR: Chia Thye Poh may be forgiven for thinking that after 33 years in confinement, people from both ends of the Causeway have relegated him to the annals of history.

On the evidence of the reception he received at the Confucian Private Secondary School in Lorong Hang Jebat here yesterday, the 70-year-old is still fondly remembered, at least by the 400 people attending an award presentation.

Chia is Asia's longestserving political prisoner, detained under Singapore's Internal Security Act (ISA) from 1966 to 1998, with the last nine years under house arrest on Sentosa Island.

He was detained after being suspected to be an ally of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) and viewed as posing a terrorism threat to the republic.

Yesterday, the former Jurong MP, between 1963 and 1965, was awarded the Lim Lian Geok (LLG) Spirit Award at the school's function hall.

Chia largely spoke on the influence the former Nanyang University had on him and how its spirit would "live on".

"I remember when the then governor of Singapore, Sir William Goode, wanted to come to the university's launch in 1956, his motorcade was delayed by more than two hours because of the immense traffic of people who came for the launch," he said in his acceptance speech.

"Nantah (Nanyang) was the wish of over three million Chinese citizens in Southeast Asia. The spirit of this university will never die."

The university ceased to exist in 1980 when the Singapore government merged it with the University of Singapore.

This was Chia's first public appearance as he spent his years of renewed freedom pursuing a doctorate at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague, Netherlands.

He was a former Barisan Sosialis party member and part of a movement that protested alleged ‘undemocratic' acts by the then Singapore premier, Lee Kuan Yew.

Chia had opposed Singapore's separation from Malaysia, and campaigned for the sustainability of Nanyang University, which was then Singapore's only Chinese language postsecondary institution.

Asked if he would make his first public appearance in the island nation, he said he would wait for the "right occasion" to do so.

The LLG award, now in its 24th edition, annually honours individuals who have served the Chinese culture or people at large.

It was first given out in 1988 in memory of the late Chinese educationist Lim Lian Geok and is largely viewed as the highest honour in the Malaysian Chinese community.

_____________________________________________________________

The ballad of Chia Thye Poh
December 19, 2011

Free Malaysia Today

(Adapted by Kua Kia Soong from The H-Block Song, Dec 18, 2011)


“I am a proud yet simple man
In the lion city my life began
A caring teacher I became
In search of truth and peace -

And when my age was tender still
My country’s wrongs my mind did fill
By tens of thousands patriots’ trills
And my questions would not cease …

Chorus:

Don’t shed no tears for my plight
I’ll boldly serve my time
Let Harry brand our noble fight
Thirty two years of crime…


“I learned of many years of strife
Of cruel laws, injustice rife
I saw in Vietnam how they ruled
The same colonial way –

Protestors beaten, tortured, maimed
Divisions nurtured, passions flamed
Outraged, provoked, rights, cause defamed
This is the conqueror’s way…

(chorus)


“They locked me up in sixty six
On trumped up charges hard to stick
They tried to force me to confess
To all their made-up lies -

I stand for human dignity
For freedom, just democracy
I know that through those years deprived
My spirit will touch lives…”

(chorus)


Chia Thye Poh, 70, the longest-serving political prisoner in Asian history, was awarded the Lim Lian Geok (LLG) Spirit Award on Dec 18, 2011 by the LLG Cultural Development Centre. The former Singapore Member of Parliament was detained for 32 years from 1966 to 1998 by Lee Kuan Yew’s government, a much longer term compared to Nelson Mandela’s 28 years of detention. The citation for the award read:

“… for upholding his belief in democracy, without compromising and never losing faith throughout the 32 years of unjust detention without trial.”

In 1963, many activists in Singapore were arrested and detained. Chia selflessly stood in for a detained candidate in the general elections and was elected Member of Parliament on a Socialist Front ticket. He was thus also a Malaysian member of parliament from 1963 to 1965 when Singapore was part of Malaysia.

A defender of the freedom of expression and justice, he was banned from entering Malaysia after he had delivered a speech at the Perak division of the Labour Party of Malaysia on April 24, 1966.

He was arrested under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) by the Singapore Government on Oct 29, 1966 which allows for indefinite detention without trial. In May 1989, he was placed under house arrest in the island of Sentosa for nine more years.

After 32 years of incarceration, he was finally granted unconditional freedom on 27 November 1998. Immediately after his restriction order was lifted, Chia issued a statement condemning the ISA. Soon after, he went to Netherlands and completed his Master’s and PhD degrees at the Institute of Social Studies at The Hague.

Established in 1988, the Lim Lian Geok Spirit Award is the highest honour in the Malaysian Chinese community bestowed on those who live up to the spirit of Lim Lian Geok, the civil rights leader of Dong Jiao Zong in the fifties and sixties.

His citizenship was revoked by the Alliance government in 1961 because of his opposition to the 1960 Rahman Talib Report that aimed to convert the Chinese secondary schools to national schools. Since his passing in 1985, Lim Lian Geok has been beatified as the “Soul of the Malaysian Chinese”.

__________________________________________________________________________

Straits Times, Dec 20, 2011 _______________________________________________________________________

Chia Thye Poh commended

Largely blackout by English media, Lianhe Zaobao reports that Chia Thye Poh receives the Lim Lian Geok Spirit Award.

毕业自南洋大学的新加坡前政治拘留者谢太宝，获马来西亚林连玉基金颁发“林连玉精神奖”，以赞扬及肯定他对母语教育的爱护与坚持。

现年70岁的谢太宝领奖时说：“对于母语教育及南洋大学，我是蒙恩受惠的多，反哺回馈的少，与那些长年累月为华教和南大默默奉献的人比较，我实在渺小得很。这份荣誉应该属于所有热爱母语教育及南大的人们。”

谢太宝于1941年出生于新加坡，1961年毕业于新加坡南洋大学，是第三届物理系学士，1963年以22岁之龄中选裕廊区国会议员。1966年10月29日，他被新加坡政府以内安法令扣留，1998年才获释。

谢太宝得奖的理由是“良心政治犯，坚持理想，坐穿牢底，体现南大精神，与林连玉威武不屈、富贵不淫的精神一致”。此次得奖也是他自1966年被监禁以来，首次公开发表演说。

他说：“大学不是象牙塔，大学的价值不在于她的良好设备，更重要的是在于她的精神，在于她能够感受时代的脉搏和人民的呼唤，为社会培养爱国爱民、贡献人类进步及世界和平的人才。”

他指出，南洋大学的创办，正如该大学创办人陈六使所说，结合“三百多万华人的胆”，凝聚“三百多万华人的志”，但却在1980年被新加坡政府关闭。

对此，他引述马国华族族魂林连玉所言：“可以摧毁我们的躯体，但南大精神却将永存。”

Translate as below.
Former political detainee Chia Thye Poh receives the Lim Lian Geok Spirit Award in view of his love and fight for the mother tongue (Chinese) education.

Chia said "I have receives much but contributed little towards Chinese and Nanyang University. Compared to those who sacrifices long time in silence, I am really nothing. This award should be rightly belonged to those who love Chinese education and Nanyang University".

Chia was borned in Singapore, graduated 1961 from Nanyang University, 3rd batch of physics graduate. During 1963, he won a seat of parliament representing Jurong constituency. He was arrested on 1966 under ISA and was released as late as 1998.

The reason for winning the award is being "prisoner of conscience, perseverance in idealism, fearless under incarceration, manifesting the spirit of Nanyang University. This is coherent with Lim Lian Geok spirit of standing firm under pressure of physical harm and under the lure of wealth".

Chia said "University is not an ivory tower. The value of university does not depend of good facilities, but most importantly on character, on its zeitgeist, and on answering the call of people; on cultivating people into somebody who are patriotic, who love human values, who contribute to human advancement and to the peace of the world".

He pointed that the founding of Nanyang University is as what Tan Lark Sye had said, the crystallization of the guts and aspiration of 3 million Chinese". It was force out of business by Singapore government.

He cited a phrase from Lim Leong Geok "One can destroy our body, but our spirit will prevail".

Chia is coming back home.
Malaysian newspaper reported. Asked if he would make his first public appearance in the island nation, he said he would wait for the "right occasion" to do so.

Dr Chia Thye Poh

by Teo Soh Lung

On Sunday, 18 December 2011, Dr Chia Thye Poh, 70, will receive a very special award, the Lim Lian Geok Spirit Award in recognition of his courage, integrity and belief in democracy.

[ The ceremony will take place in Kuala Lumpur this Sunday 18th December.
Venue: Confucian Private Secondary School, Lorong Hang Jebat, adjacent to Jalan Petaling, Chinatown, KL.
Time : 10 am
All are welcome. ][ Link ]

Chia was elected a member of the Singapore Legislative Assembly for the constituency of Jurong on 21 September 1963. He was only 22 years old and was one of 13 successful Barisan Sosialis candidates in that general election. Ong Eng Guan of the United People’s Party was the 14th opposition member in the Assembly. The PAP had 37 seats with Lee Kuan Yew as the prime minister. Chia was also a member of the Federal Parliament when Singapore was part of Malaysia.

Prior to Chia's election to the Assembly, frequent arrests under the Internal Security Act (ISA) had almost wiped out the entire leadership of the opposition. In Operation Cold Store (2 February 1963), more than 120 people were arrested. This was followed by arrests every year and two major swoops in September 1963 and October 1963 (Operation Pecah). Even before the first session of the Assembly was convened, three Barisan members of the Assembly, namely Loh Miaw Gong, Lee Tee Tong and S T Bani were arrested and imprisoned under the ISA. Two other members, Chan Sun Wing and Wong Soon Fong escaped arrests. When they subsequently wrote to the Speaker of the House enquiring if they could have his assurance that they would not be arrested if they returned to Singapore, the Speaker would not guarantee their safety. They thus remained outside Singapore till today. The number of Barisan members in the house was dramatically reduced to eight.

During the campaign for the general election in September 1963, the issue of independence through merger with Malaya was simultaneously canvassed. A wash-out referendum conducted by the ruling P.A.P. resulted in Singapore joining Malaysia on grossly unfair and unjust terms. It also resulted in confrontation with Indonesia which feared a strongly armed neighbour.

When the house sat on 9 December 1963 to debate on the address of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara’s speech, young Chia was the first opposition speaker to take the floor, moving a motion to add a note of regret to the address :

“; but this Assembly regrets that the Government in helping to impose Malaysia on the people has caused great difficulties and hardships to them in Singapore and urges the Government to take immediate steps to persuade the Central Government to get rid of foreign interference, negotiate with the Indonesian Government, and resolve all existing differences to our mutual benefit, and so help to bring stability, peace and prosperity to South-East Asia.”

Chia gave his speech in Mandarin and was exceedingly eloquent. He spoke on a wide range of issues. He opposed violence and was appalled at the millions contributed by Singapore to Malaysia for the expansion of the armed forces. He said in the Assembly on 9 December 1963 :


“… let me first remind the House that the financial arrangements under the Malaysia Agreement have literally robbed Singapore of a huge chunk of its revenue. We pay the Federation Government $117 million outright. In addition, we pay for developments of Federal departments in Singapore ($9.5 million) as well as the annually recurrent expenditure of State-cum-Federal departments ($15 million approximately).



If we add the $30 million so called loan to the Borneo territories, then the sum given away by Singapore to the Federation comes to about $170 million! $170 million of our money given away! If this money were truly used for construction and development, at least we would be consoled by the fact that our money was put to good use. But it is clear that most of our money will not be spent on construction and development, but on the expansion of armed forces and for the suppression of the national liberation struggle in Borneo! This is not the way how our money should be spent. Expenditure on armed expansion will only benefit the big arms industries in the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. Our Party had repeatedly warned against this during the debate on the Malaysia Agreement! Now all can see that what the Barisan has all along said is 100 per cent correct. The P.A.P. must be condemned for having signed away all this money of the people of Singapore! …”

On how to deal with the Indonesian confrontation, he was firmly of the view that Singapore should take steps to make peace. He said:

“… The interests of the people demand that we prevent the present friction from developing further into open conflict and war with Indonesia. Only peace will being happiness and prosperity to the people. So let all of us in Singapore make our full contribution to the defence of peace in the region…”

In numerous speeches in the Assembly, Chia spoke about the unjust and unfair manner in which the PAP called the general election. He protested against the PAP’s use of the ISA against Barisan members, candidates and trade unionists and torture inflicted on detainees.

He held his ground against older and seasoned ministers like Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, Ong Pang Boon and Toh Chin Chye. When Rajaratnam stood up once to interrupt his speech, he was not intimidated. He refused to give way and remained standing. The Speaker had to tell Rajaratnam to back off as Chia was not giving way.

Chia’s clear mathematical mind, his agility and ability to work out figures and summarised them in simple percentages must have terrified lawyers like Lee Kuan Yew and E W Barker. He understood the intimidating methods used by the P.A.P. at that time. He was clear that the ruling party then was not achieving independence for Singapore when it decided to join Malaysia. He said:

“We in the Barisan have always fought against colonialism and imperialism, and the P.A.P. attempts to deceive the people about having achieved independence (by reading a proclamation on 31st August) will not be able to prevent them from continuing the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle.

We in the Barisan have consistently fought for the basic rights and interests of the people. We fight for the workers, farmers, intellectuals, national businessmen. We shall do our best to safeguard their interests, and we shall continue to struggle for justice, equality, democracy, peace and freedom for the people.

The P.A.P. always uses the Communist bogey to frighten and intimidate the people. And indeed because of its control of the State propaganda apparatus, it has to a certain extent succeeded. But however the P.A.P. may care to play on the theme of the Communist bogey, with the hope of isolating the Barisan and gaining support for itself, it cannot cover up the fact that “poverty in the midst of plenty and unemployment in the face of affluence” are urgent problems which have to be faced, tackled and resolved. Labelling the Barisan pro-Communist simply because we want to help solve these basic problems, cannot deceive the people for any length of time. P.A.P. lies might deceive some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time. But they cannot deceive all the people all the time. P.A.P. lies will all be exposed . Truth will out and truth will triumph.”

Chia and the Barisan Sosialis were subsequently proven right for opposing merger on the terms agreed to by the P.A.P. Singapore was asked to leave Malaysia in August 1965.

It may have been the brilliance of Chia that in order to avoid debates with him, the house rarely sat. In 1964, the house met solely for the debate on the annual budget. But it could also be the P.A.P. style of ruling – that decisions be taken without debates since they had an overwhelming majority in the house. The house was thus mainly used to debate the annual budget and to enact laws.

It was probably out of frustration about the lack of opportunity to debate on important issues in the house that led Chia or the Barisan to submit a letter to the Speaker on 8 October 1966. The material part as quoted in Hansard (col. 342 of 26 October 1966) read :

“… the Party” (i.e. the Barisan Sosialis) “has decided that all Barisan ‘MPs’ will resign their ‘Parliamentary’ seats as from today. …”

The letter was signed by Chia but not the rest of the other eight Barisan members. Whether that letter constituted a resignation of Chia is debateable. The Speaker rightly refused to accept the resignation of the eight until personal letters of resignation were received subsequently. He however accepted the resignation of Chia on 18 October 1966, the same day as a letter of resignation signed by Lee Tee Tong was received by the Speaker. (Col. 344 of 26 October 1966). Why 18 October 1966 and not 8 October 1966 (the date of receipt by the Speaker) is also a mystery.

Tragically, on 29 October 1966, Chia was arrested under the ISA and imprisoned without trial for 26 years. Ironically, towards the latter part of his imprisonment, the P.A.P. insisted that Chia renounce violence. He refused since he had never advocated violence. It was clear from his speeches in the Legislative Assembly that he is a man of peace and did not believe in arms and violence. For his principle, Chia lost 26 years of the prime of his life and was subjected to severe restrictions for another 6 years. He left Singapore to pursue a Master and then a doctorate degree from the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague after restrictions on his freedom to travel were lifted.

A true hero of Singapore, I salute Dr Chia for his courage, integrity and sacrifice for Singaporeans. When he graduated from Nanyang University at the age of 20 and embarked on a teaching career, the world was so bright for him and his family. Effectively trilingual, he is proficient in English, Malay and Chinese. But for cruelty of the P.A.P., Chia would have made enormous contributions to our country and the region.

I heartily congratulate Dr Chia on his receiving the Lim Lian Geok Spiritual Award.

[1] The award ceremony will be held at the Confucian Private Secondary School, Lorong Hang Jebat, 50150, Kuala Lumpur on 18 October 2011 at 10 a.m.