FAP: SGs Choose to Have ISA. True?

[makapaaa]

[h=2]We didn’t choose the ISA[/h]

November 7th, 2012 |

Author: Contributions

Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam’s willingness to engage with social media is refreshing in an often insipid local political arena. By providing his honest thoughts on a variety of social issues beyond his mandate, he sets a good example on how to connect with ordinary Singaporeans when many of his fellow politicians’ idea of interaction in social media is still limited to the posting of strictly-for-fans-only photos of mundane community events.

With this latest interview with Yahoo! Singapore, the minister shows us he is not afraid to talk openly on sensitive topics — with the alternative media no less. This is a welcome move in light of recent talk of the government engaging with non-mainstream outlets. Unfortunately, it is what he said in this discussion on the Internal Security Act (ISA) that is worrying.

Firstly, Shanmugam is treading on very dangerous ground by using the existence of Guantanamo Bay as a justification for the ISA. Surely the minister doesn’t need reminding that the US military detention camp is universally condemned by such quarters as the United Nations, world leaders, human rights groups, and within the US itself as an acute violation of human rights and international law. Is the Singapore government prepared to face up to similar scrutiny should this come up in an international tribunal? Barack Obama has called it a “sad chapter in American history”, and only practical, legal and political difficulties are stopping him from fulfilling his promise to shut it down.

The minister also talked about the consequences of a terrorist attack if one were to hit us: business and investor confidence will be shattered, the economy will become a question mark. It won’t come as a big surprise to Singaporeans that at no point did he mention the loss of lives and loved ones, broken families, and other humanitarian concerns. While I would like to cut him some slack for what appears to be a casual interview, such may be a sad reflection of the mindset that permeates our government — all that matters is economy, economy, economy. In stark contrast, with the destruction caused by Superstorm Sandy this past week, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg wasn’t overly worried that US stock markets had to close for 2 days, a first since 9/11; the mayor was too busy looking after the well-being of his people.

Lastly, it’s hard not to see Shanmugam’s proposition that the ISA is ultimately society’s choice as nothing more than a clever ruse to get the government off the hook. Never mind the human rights violation for now and the fact that society’s wishes don’t justify a wrong – pray tell us, Minister, when have we ever been given a choice in this? It’s not as if there ever was a national referendum where the citizens of Singapore voted to have terrorist suspects locked up without trial. No, we have never told the government that this is okay, neither on dubious grounds of Marxist conspiracies in the past nor counter-terrorism in the present. Many of us do believe in proper laws and rights such as habeas corpus. So please do not pass the buck to us. As Law Minister, you should know exactly where it stops.
.
Void Decker
* The writer is a born and bred Singaporean currently residing in London, England with his lovely wife. Despite the rather unfortunate solemn face and reserved disposition, he has much to say on sociopolitical issues that continue to plague his beloved homeland. He blogs at http://www.voiddecker.com.

 

[ionzu]

another arm chair critic. come back and vote instead of hiding out in london.

 

[Fook Seng]

I think the answer is yes. The voters are not against ISA. They are not against not having a check in parliament for minority interest even though the minority has now reached 40% by returning only 7% of opposition into parliament. So yes, the voters have no desire to change any of these.

 

[Fook Seng]

another arm chair critic. come back and vote instead of hiding out in london.

Totally agree with you. Don't know whether he makes that one vote counts, not to say anything above that.

 

[giggity_shit]

We have not been given much to vote for in recent times. Voting oppo just to get more oppo in parliament is not appealing enough

 

[wMulew]

Losers like him who choose to leave the country have absolutely no right to mess with the affairs of our country. If he love the country as much as he claims to he would never have left in the first place

 

[@rmadill0]

I am fine with ISA around. We see only JI members detained in the most recent context and I do not see anyone protesting that they should not. I also do not see how they can use ISA to detain political opponents as it will cause more harm than good for them. Furthermore, why need ISA to sabo your greatest political adversary? Boleh Land already shows us how it can be done without ISA. An aide and a mattress will do the trick.

 

[Rumpole]

FALSE - Shame-mugam doesn't know the history of the ISA or worst has selective memory.

ISA started life as the Emergency Regulations and the British, embarrassed by the violation of basic human rights but still deemed it necessary in the context of a guerilla war with communist insurgents, provided that the Regulations have to be renewed every 3 months.

The Labour Front, led by Marshall, won an election in the 50s and one of its key promises was to abolish these Regulations. This exposes the lie that the SG electorate wanted the ISA.

Then came 1955 Hock Lee Riots and Marshall was "persuaded" to enact the Public Security Ordinance, which was renewable once every 3 years instead of 3 months. This meant that Marshall was going back on his promise to the electorate. Now, with the benefit of declassified documents from the British government archives, we know that some of the “riots” were engineered in order to allow subsequent “tough actions” to justified.

At the 1955 Parliamentary debates who was Marshall's most vocal critic on this? None other than Shame-mugam's master, Lee Kuan Yew.

“Of course the Chief Minister has not given his assurance to me personally that I would not suffer under these Regulations - but we all believe, at least we all should believe, that as long as his Government is in control, conscientiously, scrupulously, and honestly working these rules and regulations, no one will be penalised or made to suffer who does not deserve to be penalised or made to suffer. But he has not said what would happen if, in fact, these special powers were not used with the same scrupulous care and regard for human values as they are" – the Old Fart in 1955.

More quotes from LKY's Parliamentary speech in 1955. After reading these, the electorate should know better than to trust this man. He says one thing when he is in opposition and once in power does the direct opposite. Not only did he not abolish the Public Security Act, which was renewable every 3 years, he made it permanent - no need to renew. And after the 1987 "Marxist Conspiracy" when one brave judge exercised the right to judicial review, he changed the ISA to make detentions exempt from such review!

Can you believe this Old Fart anymore? -

“One of the basic political tenets of democracy is that a Party is elected on its election platform. Of course, if one wishes to avoid the inconvenience of having to go back to the people after going back on an election pledge one could say, in a moment of flamboyance, "I would break a promise if it were in the interests of the country." To commit that heresy would make a mockery of democracy.” LKY, 1955

“What he is seeking to do in the name of democracy is to curtail a fundamental liberty and the most fundamental of them all - freedom from arrest and punishment without having violated a specific provision of the law and being convicted for it. Of course, the Chief Minister could quibble and say, "After all, it is not punishment; it is not imprisonment; it is detention under the most benign and kind conditions." But no man should be deprived of his liberty.” LKY, 1955

More of Old Fart's "unbelievable" words in 1955:

“The Emergency as a violent struggle is very probably going through a decline, and a new phase of bitter political struggle is opening up. If we do not relax these Emergency Regulations with a relaxing of this violence, then we are admitting to ourselves that we are irrevocably wedded to what I am sure the Chief Minister will agree is a totalitarian method of government.”

“If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist States - then what is it? I am sure the Minister for Communications will be the first to say that that is what is wrong with Communist States. Then what is done in the name of democracy is right. When it is done in some other name, it is wrong. But these are fundamental beliefs. They may or may not work in Asia, that no one can say. But one can say this one must have the courage to make it work, to try it; for if it cannot work, then the alternative is one of constant suppression the end of which no one knows.”

“Mr Chairman, Sir, does it really matter whether it is an Assistant Superintendent of Police or an Inspector of Police who has the power to do these things? If we start quibbling over these things - whether the right of privacy should not be invaded by an Inspector of Police, and therefore unjustified, but by a person who wears three stars on his shoulders, and therefore justified - I think we will get ourselves thoroughly bogged down in a morass in which we will finally wind up by believing - as the Chief Minister once said - that white is black and black is white. We feel that the whole Bill is contrary to freedom and this amendment does not make it any the more palatable.”

Only dumb Sinkies will continue to believe in this Old Fart and his cronies, like Shame-mugam.

By the way, in 1955 the Public Security Ordinance was passed and the vote count was 19 yes, 4 no, 7 abstentions. The 4 noes were Ahmad Ibrahim, Goh Chew Chua, Lee Kuan Yew and Lim Chin Siong. The 19 yes were from the Labour Front, who as explained above had broken one of their key electoral promises.

The full speeches are available here http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.jsp?currentPubID=00068865-ZZ

You will notice that even though the PAP only had 4 MPs, this did not stop the Old Fart from talking the longest and interrupting the most - a lesson for our current opposition MPs.

 

[Fook Seng]

We have not been given much to vote for in recent times. Voting oppo just to get more oppo in parliament is not appealing enough

You mean voting in ruling party members into parliament who remain largely non-expressive is appealing.