http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/10/23/exclusive-the-temasek-review-talks-to-alan-shadrake/
British Author Alan Shadrake of “Once a Jolly Hangman”, was arrested on the 18th of July 2010 in Singapore, and subsequently detained for approximately two days.
With respect, to his ongoing trial in The Singapore’s High Court, we will refrain from discussing his case and book in depth, as that would be a contempt of court and adversely affect his ongoing trial.
Currently a resident of adjacent Malaysia, he was, charged to have “cast doubt on the impartiality and independence of the judiciary” with the charge being (Scandalizing the Judiciary).
————
TR: Alan, how have you been holding up?
Alan: (Laughs) I am getting by.
TR: In the interest of a fair and balanced interview, we would like to ask, were your intentions for writing the Book (Once a Jolly Hangman) to scandalize the judiciary of Singapore or was it purely investigative journalism, which expanded into a book?
I got into this book by chance. I’d been invited by the Singapore Tourism Board to write some travel articles for a publication in California. I had been living in various parts of the US for 20 years and as a Permanent Resident, I could have become a citizen. When I arrived in March 2002 as a guest, I learned of two murders involving a British millionaire Mike McCrea. It was known as The Orchard Towers murders. McCrea had fled to Australia with his girlfriend Audrey Ong. She alone returned to Singapore. Seeing as how Australia cannot extradite anyone to any country where they might face the death penalty. A long legal battle ensued and Singapore had to promise not to hang him if found guilty.
Around the same time an Australian citizen, Nguyen Van Tuong, was hanged for drug trafficking. The difference in penalty here stood out like a sore thumb to me. If the death penalty did not come into the picture there would be no need to make these “ad hoc” arrangements as to who should live or who should die in such cases.
My (surprise) interview with the hangman which went around the world, further peeked my interest and I decided to look into many old and recent trials which ended on the gallows – and the unusual cases where it didn’t. I quickly came to an understanding that different punishments were perhaps meeted out to similar crimes. And more often than not, simple mules, often young, immature and vulnerable girls and boys were the ones who ended up being hanged – not the sophisticated adults that had lured them into trafficking.
It occurred to me that no visible efforts were being made to catch the king pins. In particular the cases of Julia Bohl, who helped run a lucrative drugs ring in Singapore, and Guiga Lyes Ben Laroussi, who ran an even bigger operation which became known as The High Society Cocaine Circle. Guiga amazingly escaped the long arm of Singapore’s Law, all this before being allowed bail while facing a maximum 30 year jail sentence. He managed to get his passport back and return home to Tunisia. Despite being put on Interpol’s website for the past 5 years, it appears that no effort has been made to bring him back for trial. Quite a different story to that of the Romanian diplomat who allegedly killed a Singaporean in a drunk driving accident. Laroussi had been destroying lives in Singapore for years! It gave me a very strong impression that cases which should have had the same strong verdict and Mandatory Punishment were differing greatly.
TR: A recent article by By Rachel Harvey – South East Asia correspondent, of the BBC News, insinuated that at the close of your trial, spanning three days (18 -20 Oct 2010) you remained openly defiant. Are you ? And were you interviewed by Ms Rachael Harvey?
Alan: I was not interviewed by Rachel Harvey at all throughout the trial from October 18 to October 20. Her PA – Annie – in Bangkok called me on October 19 to ask about the trial and said Rachel could not come to Singapore because of a story she was on in Indonesia. It was agreed that I would take part in a phone interview the next day, Wednesday, instead and that Annie would call me. But she did not call. The next thing I read was the repeat of Rachel Harvey’s report made at my first court appearance two months ago. It was Googled to me as a ‘news’! Only the date was changed and it claimed that Rachel had interviewed me outside the court on October 20.
It also stated that I was still defiant, and (that) aggressive photo of me wearing an oatmeal coloured jacket was also added to this false report. I was actually very conservatively dressed in a black jacket, dark blue shirt, Grey trousers and black shoes. I did not make any statements and simply walked calmly into the court and left in the same manner. Photos in the Straits Times and other local and international media outlets show that very clearly.
My mood shortly after my arrest had changed completely. I was now in control of my emotions, my health had improved somewhat and I was back to my normal frame of mind. When I made those aggressive statements and gestures shortly after my arrest I was extremely angry to be treated in the way I was. At 6.30am on the morning of July 18, four police officers barged into my hotel room, harassed me to get dressed, did not give me a chance to even shower then bundled me down a side stairway to a car in a side street. I am now 76 and have a long term heart condition. If anyone had used their common sense in planning my arrest they might have considered that I could have had a heart attack. I was then taken to the police HQ, photographed, had all my possessions taken away, including my passport and mobile phones, then taken to a cell to spend two days and unable to sleep. The only furniture the cell was a concrete floor.
Had I been an armed bank robber of one of Salamat Kastari’s pals I would have understood all of this. But why arrest and interrogate me in such an uncivilized way? There was no need for that and if a warrant for my arrest had been issued I would not have been able to leave Singapore anyway, passport or no passport. I cooperated with the police as I have nothing to hide or fear.
I wrote this book not just as a journalist but as a human being. I knew in my heart it had to be done. Similar investigations were carried out in England in the 1940s and 50s which revealed that innocent men and women had been hanged and more recently in the US uncovered by the Innocence Project in which DNA has been the most important witness to these appalling miscarriages of justice. This barbarity must stop everywhere!
TR: Considering that you were not interviewed by Ms Rachael Harvey of the BBC for her article, could you share with us your views as to why you think The BBC would have Categorized you alongside Human Right’s Activist who were recently Jailed, peculiarly seeing as how you were waist deep into your trial at that point of time?
Alan: Getting back to Rachel Harvey, without wanting to sound paranoid at such a time, the report painted me in a really bad light. I wonder if they had intended it. The reasoning is this: (1) When she first interviewed me before the trial and shortly after my arrest, the general tone was very critical of Singapore. She also interviewed others including Seelan Palay. The BBC has been long-established in Singapore and local staffers would never be called upon to interview me. That’s why she was sent from Bangkok. Taking this into account, I can only assume that the BBC had either been asked to change their stance or it was a case of bad reporting. I have asked for the report to be replaced by a truthful one and one that reflected what happened during my three day trial, not an incident that took place in entirely different circumstances two months ago. The BBC claims to be the best television and radio broadcaster in the world. I would say that this incident alone has taken the shine off that squeaky clean image, too! Why on earth couldn’t they have kept abreast of what was going on through AFP, AP, DPA, Reuters, The Straits Times, Today and the bloggers? All clearly available to them online. The BBC also missed out on two important stories arising from the trial and should a real reporter have been there they would have been covered – as did the Straits Times.
TR: Given the ‘Huge’ publicity the penmanship of this book has given you in both the local and global media. Do you think you have been given a fair (Trial) by the local and global media?
Alan: Apart from the latest incident with the BBC and Rachel Harvey, I think I have been treated extremely fairly by all the local media. I have no complaints and I have actually told them so in person and by email.
TR: Do you think gagging the press, and Singaporeans at large from discussing your book, even after having had the charges being levied against you, would have stopped/prevented the foreign media and Singaporeans as a whole from discussing your book ?
Alan: I don’t think the foreign media felt restricted at all and reported clearly as did the local media and especially the online media, including The Temasek Review and of course other Websites and socio-political blogs and forums.
TR: If we were to ask you to describe your book in two words, what would they be and why ?
Alan: Revealing. Surprising.
TR: Since the advent of the Internet, The Global Political and Information Community have both struggled to stem information and share information in their respective roles. Do you think the flow of information can be curtailed by legislation and ambiguous laws, seeing it in the context of the Internet being an Information Gateway not bound to a geographic location?
Alan: Well this is still happening. Just after my arrest Martyn See was threatened again regarding his recent video interview. and was facing a $2000 fine and jail unless he had it removed from YouTube etc. I still wonder why laws that apply to a specific country, is seen to be juristic-ting a Global Platform.
TR: Some Singaporeans and Global Watcher’s have accused you of ‘meddling’ with a Country’s internal issue. What are your views on their opinion? And do you see yourself as ‘meddling’ with a Country’s internal problem?
Alan: Very interesting. Every country ‘meddles’ in the internal politics of every other country when it has to or when it gets the chance – on all kinds of issues. We live in a world where geo-politics are paramount. Singapore meddles in the affairs of every other country in the region and beyond. It is now trying to export its governmental model to less developed countries. Britain, the US, Russia, China, India. It’s the way human beings are. As for my meddling, I have a right, like anyone else, to write about what goes on in any country whether they like it or not.
In fact, I have been encouraged by Singaporeans to write about issues surrounding the death penalty. And I am praised and supported every single day for what I have done and a lot of the praise has come from some very influential circles. My revelations also concern relations between Singapore and other countries – the United States, the UK, Germany, Holland, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and in particular Australia. If you read the book you will understand this. This is not meddling at all – I have helped educate many people. The word meddling conjures up a meaning of unwarranted interfering. My book is nothing of the sort. Before expressing opinions they should read it and study other sources I leaned on – US State Department annual reports, the IBA and Amnesty among many others, and find the courage to do what I did – stick their necks out! Millions of brave people have died and have suffered in the struggle for freedom to think for themselves and not be bullied into submission. I am proud of what I have done in writing this book. I did not scandalize the judiciary – I merely exposed some scandals!
TR: What are your views on Socio-political blogs/sites, in particular The Temasek Review and what Impact do you think we have (if any) on Singaporeans and how this in turn will reflect on the Political Landscape in Singapore?
Alan: The more people find the courage to speak out against all kinds of injustices the better and of course blogs like TR are vital and they will remain vital until there is a free Press in Singapore and every place where freedom of speech is restricted and the ‘thought control police’ are in charge. Otherwise Singapore will go down the Orwellian path and never return to normal.
TR: Further given the differential political climate in Singapore, what changes do you think Temasek Review and other active socio-political blogs/sites in Singapore have accomplished?
Alan: The impression I get, especially since my arrest, is that Singaporeans are becoming bolder in expressing their opinion and not just keeping quiet for fear of being ostracized, jobless or worse prosecuted. This is attributable to website like yourself (ie: Temasek Review).
TR: What does freedom of speech mean to you?
Alan: I grew up in London and for some of the time during my teens, I lived near Hyde Park Corner. Every Sunday morning I used to go to Speakers Corner – the real one – and listen to all kinds of people, of all nationalities, politics and religions. Many were from Africa who ranted about the British Empire and what it was doing to their countries. No police were in sight. So long as no one broke laws such as inciting racial hatred etc – then this law was slightly differently worded if I remember – there was never any interference. Every Sunday was like going into many classrooms listening to all kinds of opinions. It was absolutely wonderful and I will defend the right to freedom of speech for the rest of my days.
TR: What are your personal views on The Death Penalty issue worldwide, and do you see yourself as an advocate against the death penalty in your own personal capacity?
Alan: I did not intend to become an advocate against the death penalty but now I have decided to in whatever capacity I can. I might even get a soapbox of my own and set up in Hyde Park Corner and yell across the planet in the direction of Singapore to help end the death penalty here!
TR: What would like to tell your ardent supporters in Singapore, and to those who have stood stoically by you, throughout this ordeal?
Alan: I would just like to thank everyone from the bottom of my heart for their kindness and support. Some people may think I do not like Singapore. The opposite is the truth in fact. I think the majority are extremely good-hearted but I think also that they deserve better governance – if I am not ‘meddling’ when I say this. It is obvious that whatever happens on Thursday, I will be either deported or told to leave and be banished forever. I hope this does not happen. It will be a ‘first’ for me and not one that I feel I deserve.
.
Pamela Tien
Managing Editor’s note: To protect the interest of all parties in this interview, details of how our TR editor contacted and met Alan Shadrake are intentionally omitted.
British Author Alan Shadrake of “Once a Jolly Hangman”, was arrested on the 18th of July 2010 in Singapore, and subsequently detained for approximately two days.
With respect, to his ongoing trial in The Singapore’s High Court, we will refrain from discussing his case and book in depth, as that would be a contempt of court and adversely affect his ongoing trial.
Currently a resident of adjacent Malaysia, he was, charged to have “cast doubt on the impartiality and independence of the judiciary” with the charge being (Scandalizing the Judiciary).
————
TR: Alan, how have you been holding up?
Alan: (Laughs) I am getting by.
TR: In the interest of a fair and balanced interview, we would like to ask, were your intentions for writing the Book (Once a Jolly Hangman) to scandalize the judiciary of Singapore or was it purely investigative journalism, which expanded into a book?
I got into this book by chance. I’d been invited by the Singapore Tourism Board to write some travel articles for a publication in California. I had been living in various parts of the US for 20 years and as a Permanent Resident, I could have become a citizen. When I arrived in March 2002 as a guest, I learned of two murders involving a British millionaire Mike McCrea. It was known as The Orchard Towers murders. McCrea had fled to Australia with his girlfriend Audrey Ong. She alone returned to Singapore. Seeing as how Australia cannot extradite anyone to any country where they might face the death penalty. A long legal battle ensued and Singapore had to promise not to hang him if found guilty.
Around the same time an Australian citizen, Nguyen Van Tuong, was hanged for drug trafficking. The difference in penalty here stood out like a sore thumb to me. If the death penalty did not come into the picture there would be no need to make these “ad hoc” arrangements as to who should live or who should die in such cases.
My (surprise) interview with the hangman which went around the world, further peeked my interest and I decided to look into many old and recent trials which ended on the gallows – and the unusual cases where it didn’t. I quickly came to an understanding that different punishments were perhaps meeted out to similar crimes. And more often than not, simple mules, often young, immature and vulnerable girls and boys were the ones who ended up being hanged – not the sophisticated adults that had lured them into trafficking.
It occurred to me that no visible efforts were being made to catch the king pins. In particular the cases of Julia Bohl, who helped run a lucrative drugs ring in Singapore, and Guiga Lyes Ben Laroussi, who ran an even bigger operation which became known as The High Society Cocaine Circle. Guiga amazingly escaped the long arm of Singapore’s Law, all this before being allowed bail while facing a maximum 30 year jail sentence. He managed to get his passport back and return home to Tunisia. Despite being put on Interpol’s website for the past 5 years, it appears that no effort has been made to bring him back for trial. Quite a different story to that of the Romanian diplomat who allegedly killed a Singaporean in a drunk driving accident. Laroussi had been destroying lives in Singapore for years! It gave me a very strong impression that cases which should have had the same strong verdict and Mandatory Punishment were differing greatly.
TR: A recent article by By Rachel Harvey – South East Asia correspondent, of the BBC News, insinuated that at the close of your trial, spanning three days (18 -20 Oct 2010) you remained openly defiant. Are you ? And were you interviewed by Ms Rachael Harvey?
Alan: I was not interviewed by Rachel Harvey at all throughout the trial from October 18 to October 20. Her PA – Annie – in Bangkok called me on October 19 to ask about the trial and said Rachel could not come to Singapore because of a story she was on in Indonesia. It was agreed that I would take part in a phone interview the next day, Wednesday, instead and that Annie would call me. But she did not call. The next thing I read was the repeat of Rachel Harvey’s report made at my first court appearance two months ago. It was Googled to me as a ‘news’! Only the date was changed and it claimed that Rachel had interviewed me outside the court on October 20.
It also stated that I was still defiant, and (that) aggressive photo of me wearing an oatmeal coloured jacket was also added to this false report. I was actually very conservatively dressed in a black jacket, dark blue shirt, Grey trousers and black shoes. I did not make any statements and simply walked calmly into the court and left in the same manner. Photos in the Straits Times and other local and international media outlets show that very clearly.
My mood shortly after my arrest had changed completely. I was now in control of my emotions, my health had improved somewhat and I was back to my normal frame of mind. When I made those aggressive statements and gestures shortly after my arrest I was extremely angry to be treated in the way I was. At 6.30am on the morning of July 18, four police officers barged into my hotel room, harassed me to get dressed, did not give me a chance to even shower then bundled me down a side stairway to a car in a side street. I am now 76 and have a long term heart condition. If anyone had used their common sense in planning my arrest they might have considered that I could have had a heart attack. I was then taken to the police HQ, photographed, had all my possessions taken away, including my passport and mobile phones, then taken to a cell to spend two days and unable to sleep. The only furniture the cell was a concrete floor.
Had I been an armed bank robber of one of Salamat Kastari’s pals I would have understood all of this. But why arrest and interrogate me in such an uncivilized way? There was no need for that and if a warrant for my arrest had been issued I would not have been able to leave Singapore anyway, passport or no passport. I cooperated with the police as I have nothing to hide or fear.
I wrote this book not just as a journalist but as a human being. I knew in my heart it had to be done. Similar investigations were carried out in England in the 1940s and 50s which revealed that innocent men and women had been hanged and more recently in the US uncovered by the Innocence Project in which DNA has been the most important witness to these appalling miscarriages of justice. This barbarity must stop everywhere!
TR: Considering that you were not interviewed by Ms Rachael Harvey of the BBC for her article, could you share with us your views as to why you think The BBC would have Categorized you alongside Human Right’s Activist who were recently Jailed, peculiarly seeing as how you were waist deep into your trial at that point of time?
Alan: Getting back to Rachel Harvey, without wanting to sound paranoid at such a time, the report painted me in a really bad light. I wonder if they had intended it. The reasoning is this: (1) When she first interviewed me before the trial and shortly after my arrest, the general tone was very critical of Singapore. She also interviewed others including Seelan Palay. The BBC has been long-established in Singapore and local staffers would never be called upon to interview me. That’s why she was sent from Bangkok. Taking this into account, I can only assume that the BBC had either been asked to change their stance or it was a case of bad reporting. I have asked for the report to be replaced by a truthful one and one that reflected what happened during my three day trial, not an incident that took place in entirely different circumstances two months ago. The BBC claims to be the best television and radio broadcaster in the world. I would say that this incident alone has taken the shine off that squeaky clean image, too! Why on earth couldn’t they have kept abreast of what was going on through AFP, AP, DPA, Reuters, The Straits Times, Today and the bloggers? All clearly available to them online. The BBC also missed out on two important stories arising from the trial and should a real reporter have been there they would have been covered – as did the Straits Times.
TR: Given the ‘Huge’ publicity the penmanship of this book has given you in both the local and global media. Do you think you have been given a fair (Trial) by the local and global media?
Alan: Apart from the latest incident with the BBC and Rachel Harvey, I think I have been treated extremely fairly by all the local media. I have no complaints and I have actually told them so in person and by email.
TR: Do you think gagging the press, and Singaporeans at large from discussing your book, even after having had the charges being levied against you, would have stopped/prevented the foreign media and Singaporeans as a whole from discussing your book ?
Alan: I don’t think the foreign media felt restricted at all and reported clearly as did the local media and especially the online media, including The Temasek Review and of course other Websites and socio-political blogs and forums.
TR: If we were to ask you to describe your book in two words, what would they be and why ?
Alan: Revealing. Surprising.
TR: Since the advent of the Internet, The Global Political and Information Community have both struggled to stem information and share information in their respective roles. Do you think the flow of information can be curtailed by legislation and ambiguous laws, seeing it in the context of the Internet being an Information Gateway not bound to a geographic location?
Alan: Well this is still happening. Just after my arrest Martyn See was threatened again regarding his recent video interview. and was facing a $2000 fine and jail unless he had it removed from YouTube etc. I still wonder why laws that apply to a specific country, is seen to be juristic-ting a Global Platform.
TR: Some Singaporeans and Global Watcher’s have accused you of ‘meddling’ with a Country’s internal issue. What are your views on their opinion? And do you see yourself as ‘meddling’ with a Country’s internal problem?
Alan: Very interesting. Every country ‘meddles’ in the internal politics of every other country when it has to or when it gets the chance – on all kinds of issues. We live in a world where geo-politics are paramount. Singapore meddles in the affairs of every other country in the region and beyond. It is now trying to export its governmental model to less developed countries. Britain, the US, Russia, China, India. It’s the way human beings are. As for my meddling, I have a right, like anyone else, to write about what goes on in any country whether they like it or not.
In fact, I have been encouraged by Singaporeans to write about issues surrounding the death penalty. And I am praised and supported every single day for what I have done and a lot of the praise has come from some very influential circles. My revelations also concern relations between Singapore and other countries – the United States, the UK, Germany, Holland, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and in particular Australia. If you read the book you will understand this. This is not meddling at all – I have helped educate many people. The word meddling conjures up a meaning of unwarranted interfering. My book is nothing of the sort. Before expressing opinions they should read it and study other sources I leaned on – US State Department annual reports, the IBA and Amnesty among many others, and find the courage to do what I did – stick their necks out! Millions of brave people have died and have suffered in the struggle for freedom to think for themselves and not be bullied into submission. I am proud of what I have done in writing this book. I did not scandalize the judiciary – I merely exposed some scandals!
TR: What are your views on Socio-political blogs/sites, in particular The Temasek Review and what Impact do you think we have (if any) on Singaporeans and how this in turn will reflect on the Political Landscape in Singapore?
Alan: The more people find the courage to speak out against all kinds of injustices the better and of course blogs like TR are vital and they will remain vital until there is a free Press in Singapore and every place where freedom of speech is restricted and the ‘thought control police’ are in charge. Otherwise Singapore will go down the Orwellian path and never return to normal.
TR: Further given the differential political climate in Singapore, what changes do you think Temasek Review and other active socio-political blogs/sites in Singapore have accomplished?
Alan: The impression I get, especially since my arrest, is that Singaporeans are becoming bolder in expressing their opinion and not just keeping quiet for fear of being ostracized, jobless or worse prosecuted. This is attributable to website like yourself (ie: Temasek Review).
TR: What does freedom of speech mean to you?
Alan: I grew up in London and for some of the time during my teens, I lived near Hyde Park Corner. Every Sunday morning I used to go to Speakers Corner – the real one – and listen to all kinds of people, of all nationalities, politics and religions. Many were from Africa who ranted about the British Empire and what it was doing to their countries. No police were in sight. So long as no one broke laws such as inciting racial hatred etc – then this law was slightly differently worded if I remember – there was never any interference. Every Sunday was like going into many classrooms listening to all kinds of opinions. It was absolutely wonderful and I will defend the right to freedom of speech for the rest of my days.
TR: What are your personal views on The Death Penalty issue worldwide, and do you see yourself as an advocate against the death penalty in your own personal capacity?
Alan: I did not intend to become an advocate against the death penalty but now I have decided to in whatever capacity I can. I might even get a soapbox of my own and set up in Hyde Park Corner and yell across the planet in the direction of Singapore to help end the death penalty here!
TR: What would like to tell your ardent supporters in Singapore, and to those who have stood stoically by you, throughout this ordeal?
Alan: I would just like to thank everyone from the bottom of my heart for their kindness and support. Some people may think I do not like Singapore. The opposite is the truth in fact. I think the majority are extremely good-hearted but I think also that they deserve better governance – if I am not ‘meddling’ when I say this. It is obvious that whatever happens on Thursday, I will be either deported or told to leave and be banished forever. I hope this does not happen. It will be a ‘first’ for me and not one that I feel I deserve.
.
Pamela Tien
Managing Editor’s note: To protect the interest of all parties in this interview, details of how our TR editor contacted and met Alan Shadrake are intentionally omitted.
