Teo Soh Lung on ISD (facebook)

Teo Soh Lung on Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 11:23am
.
After more than 4 decades, we are informed by the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Teo Chee Hean that more than 800 people were arrested in the 1970s. This number is not small and I dread to speculate the number arrested in the preceding decade. We are aware that more than 120 people were arrested on 2 February 1963 in Operation Cold Store. Almost the entire central committee of the Barisan Sosialis including Dr Lim Hock Siew and Dr Poh Soo Kai were detained. Inche Said Zahari and trade unionists, the Late Mr Ho Piao and Mr Jamit Singh were also not spared.

In October that year Operation Pecah followed and elected opposition members of parliament, Ms Loh Meow Gong and Messrs Lee Tee Tong and S T Bani were detained. In 1963 alone, the number imprisoned must have exceeded 200. It would not be wrong to say that the arrests of the leaders of the opposition and trade unions in 1963 ensured monopoly of power for the PAP till today. Almost every year after 1963, there were arrests. Arrests continues to this day. No evidence of weapons or bombs was ever been produced by the government. All we are told is that we have to trust the judgement of the government.

In arguing for the retention of the ISA, the minister reiterated the “nipped in the bud” theory expounded by his predecessors. He said: “…The ISA thus allows the government to act quickly to prevent a threat from developing into something very serious such as a bombing; or to stem an organised pattern of subversion which promotes civil disturbances and disorder…”

Every citizen who is arrested is deprived of his constitutional right to life or personal liberty, freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly and association which are guaranteed by Articles 9 and 14 of our Constitution. Families are often deprived of sole breadwinners. But perhaps the PAP have reasons for doing what they did. They know that periodic arrests instil fear amongst citizens. Fear ensures the survival of the PAP.

It is time we question the retention of the ISA, a law that permits the ministers or prime minister to imprison citizens for as long as they wish. We are told that ministers rely on the Internal Security Department which have made thorough investigation before ordering the detention of citizens or renewing their detention orders. Is this true? Dr Lim Hock Siew’s public statement issued through his legal adviser, the Late Mr T T Rajah and released by his wife, Dr Beatrice Chen on 18 March 1972 exposed this lie. I reproduce part of the statement [1] below:

“… A week after my transfer to the special branch headquarters, the same two high-ranking employees spelt out the conditions of my release. They demanded from me two things. They are as follows:

(1) That I make an oral statement of my past political activities, that is to say, `A security statement’. This was meant for the special branch records only and not meant for publication.

(2) That I must issue a public statement consisting of two points: (a) That I am prepared to give up politics and devote to medical practice thereafter. (b) That I must express support for the parliamentary democratic system.

I shall now recall and recapitulate the conversation that took place between me and the same two high-ranking special branch agents during my detention at the special branch headquarters.

Special Branch: You need not have to condemn the Barisan Sosialis or any person. We admit that it is unjust to detain you so long. Nine years is a long time in a person’s life; we are anxious to settle your case.

Dr Lim Hock Siew: My case will be settled immediately if I am released unconditionally. I was not asked at the time of my arrest whether I ought to be arrested. Release me unconditionally and my case is settled.

Special Branch: The key is in your hands. It is for you to open the door.

Dr Lim Hock Siew: To say that the key is in my hands is the inverted logic of gangsters in which white is black and black is white. The victim is painted as the culprit and the culprit is made to look innocent. Four Gurkha soldiers were brought to my house to arrest me. I did not ask or seek arrest or the prolonged detention for over nine years in prison without trial.


Special Branch: You must concede something so that Lee Kuan Yew would be in a position to explain to the public why you had been detained so long. Mr Lee Kuan Yew must also preserve his face. If you were to be released unconditionally, he will lose face.


Dr Lim Hock Siew: I am not interested in saving Lee Kuan Yew’s face. This is not a question of pride but one of principle. My detention is completely unjustifiable and I will not lift a single finger to help Lee Kuan Yew to justify the unjustifiable. In the light of what you say, is it not very clear that I have lost my freedom all these long and bitter years just to save Lee Kuan Yew’s face? Therefore the PAP regime’s allegation that I am a security risk is a sham cover and a façade to detain me unjustifiably for over nine years. “


Dr Lim was 31 years old when he was arrested on 2 February 1963. His son was then 5 months’ old. He and Dr Poh Soo Kai had two years earlier, set up a medical clinic, Rakyat Clinic along Balestier Road which provided and still provides medical care for the poor. Both were also founder members of Barisan Sosialis.

The PAP kept Dr Lim in jail for 20 years. They freed him unconditionally at the age of 51. He had missed the prime of his life and the growing up years of his son. The PAP had ensured for themselves that Dr Lim no longer posed a political threat to them. Only a person of courage and determination can survive such a long period of imprisonment. And only people who have lost their conscience can imprison Dr Lim for 2 decades without trial.



Mr Chng Min Oh @ Chuang Men-Hu

While many of the people detained in the 1960s were imprisoned for decades, I did not expect the PAP government to continue that practice in the 1970s. I was therefore shocked to meet Mr Chng Min Oh @ Chuang Men-Hu recently.


Mr Chng was a humble construction worker and painter when he was arrested under the ISA on 3 August 1970. He was involved in trade union activities. Leaving his wife who was then three months’ pregnant and two young children aged 4 and 6 that dawn must have been painful for him. He was offered freedom by banishment i.e. if he agreed to being banished to China. He refused the offer.

Mr Chng remained in prison while his wife took on several jobs to raise the young family. She became a construction worker and a hawker whenever she had time. While she worked, her parents helped in looking after the children. Life was terribly hard for the family. They did not even have money for medical treatment. But the ministers did not care and renewed his detention order 7 times. He was finally released after 13 years, on 7 August 1983. He had served a life sentence though he was never judged guilty of any crime in a court of law.


The hardship of separation in indefinite detention is captured vividly in the poem Tears by Said Zahari. Zahari was imprisoned for 17 years.


Tears[2]


I saw tears down your cheeks
sparkling like diamonds,
beautiful like shining stars
in a clear night sky.
I saw sorrow
dancing in tune with your sobs.
My heart beats faster, my lips tremble.

Then I saw courage,
confidence and determination,
peering from behind the sorrow.
How cruel, how inhumane!
So high, so huge
This partition between us.
For so long!

But in spirit we are one,
as always,
bound by unbreakable bonds
of love and longing for justice.
Neither this prison wall
nor a hundred years of incarceration
shall diminish my love.


Hari Raya card to Sal
20th November 1969


How can we believe Minister Teo Chee Hean when he said “The Government has used the ISA as a last resort when there is a significant threat, and other laws are not adequate to deal with the situation...” when so many citizens were imprisoned for decades without trial. How can the PAP ministers take away the fundamental liberties of its citizens in the name of national security so freely and so frequently when Singapore was and is not at war? Have they all lost their conscience?


[1] Poh Soo Kai, Tan Jing Quee and Koh Kay Yew Eds. The Fajar Generation The University Socialist Club and the Politics of Postwar Malaya and Singapore Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, Malaysia pp 150 – 151.


[2] Tan Jing Quee Teo Soh Lung Koh Kay Yew Eds Our Thoughts Are Free Poems and Prose on Imprisonment and Exile Ethos Books 2009 Singapore p 47

Race to Record Bukit Brown grave - ST27 Oct

Race to record Bukit Brown graves

Search for qualified people willing to help will be a challenge
Huang Lijie Straits Times 27 Oct 11;

THE task to document some 5,000 graves at Bukit Brown cemetery by next March is likely to be an uphill one.

While government funds will be made available, finding enough people qualified and willing to take on the project will be a challenge, said stakeholders such as culture and heritage associations.

The Government confirmed on Monday that it will proceed with plans to build a new road through the cemetery, which is filled with graves of pioneers. The road is needed to ease traffic in Lor-nie Road and to serve future housing projects.

Construction of the dual four-lane road will begin in the first quarter of 2013 and end by 2016. About 5 per cent of the more than 100,000 graves at the cemetery, which dates back to the 1890s, will be exhumed for the roadworks.

The Government said it is committed to properly recording the area's rich history. Dr Hui Yew-Foong, 39, an anthropologist at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, will be leading a working committee to do the job.

He estimates it will take 600 man days to record the affected graves.

If 10 people work full-time five days a week, the task will be completed in three months.

Formal recruitment of documentarians has not begun because the working committee is being formed. But Dr Hui said he has tapped on his personal network and that of friends to sound out potential candidates.

He said: 'We have between 10 and 15 people who have said they are willing, but mostly on a part-time basis.' He added that it may be hard to find 10 full-time workers because of the demands of the job and its short-term contract.

They will get training but must be able to read the simplified Chinese script or, better yet, the traditional Chinese one to decipher tombstone inscriptions.

They need to have an eye for details such as inscriptions of the name, birth place and genealogy of the deceased as well as tomb sculpture and fengshui markers. Those doing field work also need to be able to take photos to capture details of the graves, and be physically fit.

Dr Hui added: 'We are also limited to the semi-employed or unemployed because what we offer is a few months' work and those employed full-time may not give up their jobs to do this.'

However, Mr Raymond Goh, 47, regional director of a health-care firm and a passionate tomb explorer, said: 'If you pay them well, there will always be people who will come forward.'

The Urban Redevelopment Authority and Land Transport Authority said the Government will fund the documentation but declined to state the sum as details are being worked out.

The Straits Times understands that preliminary talks have placed the amount in the range of $250,000 and it will be used to buy equipment and hire documentarians.

Dr Hui said he may turn to stakeholders such as the Singapore Heritage Society (SHS), Singapore Hokkien Huay Kuan and Peranakan Association to help spread the word and rally volunteers. When contacted, the three associations said they would encourage their members to sign up.

A spokesman for the SHS noted that criteria such as the ability to read Chinese and being physically fit may not be met by many of its more than 200 members.

Regardless of the number of documentarians he can get, Dr Hui said he will begin work once contractors start clearing undergrowth and identifying the graves next month.

Next March was set as the deadline by the authorities to coincide with the release of a registry of affected graves to notify the next of kin. Families who want to carry out private exhumations could do so between then and the fourth quarter of next year, when public exhumation begins.

Ideally, the graves should be documented before any exhumation begins and the tombs are destroyed.

Documenting the graves is just one aspect of recording the cemetery's heritage. Its history, people's memories of it and the rituals carried out there will have to be captured via the oral accounts of people who visit the place.

The exhumation will also have to be documented and it includes the recording of rituals associated with exhumation and reburial.

Documentation of the graves will be done by hand and digital photos, while video recordings may be used to document other aspects such as people's memories and the exhumation process. The records will be kept with the authorities and the intention is to make them available for research and study.

Dr Hui said the aim is to complete documenting the cemetery by the end of next year, though meeting the March deadline for the graves is his chief priority. On a possibility that the deadline may not be met, he said there would be no choice but to 'keep going' and to give priority to graves that will be exhumed first.

The authorities did not comment on whether the deadline could be postponed but said they are fully committed to the project and details are being worked out.

The SHS spokesman said: 'If it looks like the work cannot be completed by March and if the extra time needed is not too long, we hope the authorities will be flexible and continue to be as supportive.'

Aside from the upcoming road, the area south of Bukit Brown around the Police Academy will be developed for public housing in about 10 to 15 years.

The rest of Bukit Brown is also slated for housing but it was reported this will not take place until 2030 or 2040

Muammar Gaddafi: How he died

Muammar Gaddafi: How he died - BBC

Attempt to escape Sirte

After the fall of Tripoli in August, Sirte remained one of the final pockets of loyalist resistance, in particular District 2 in the north-west of the city.

In the early hours of Thursday it appears that Col Gaddafi, accompanied by key loyalists, decided to attempt a breakout from District 2 in a convoy of vehicles.

At about 08:30 local time French aircraft operating as part of the Nato mission attacked the convoy of 75 vehicles heading out of Sirte at high speed approximately 3-4 km (two miles) west of the city near the western roundabout.

Among those in the convoy were Col Gaddafi's son Mutassim and head of Gaddafi's army Abu Bakr Younis Jabr - both men were later reported dead at the scene and Mutassim's body shown on Libyan TV.

According to Nato, a first strike destroyed one vehicle and caused the convoy to disperse into several groups.

One of those groups, carrying Col Gaddafi, headed south and was hit again by a Nato fighter, destroying 11 vehicles.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
My master is here ... Muammar Gaddafi is here and he is wounded”
End Quote
Unnamed Gaddafi bodyguard

Col Gaddafi and a handful of his men managed to escape on foot and sought refuge in two large drainage pipes filled with rubbish. Rebel forces then closed in.

Fighter Salem Bakeer told Reuters: "At first we fired at them with anti-aircraft guns, but it was no use.

"Then we went in on foot. One of Gaddafi's men came out waving his rifle in the air... as soon as he saw my face he started shooting at me. I think Gaddafi must have told them to stop. 'My master is here, my master is here', he said, 'Muammar Gaddafi is here and he is wounded'".

Gaddafi caught

Col Gaddafi was initially captured at around noon.

The al-Jazeera news channel broadcast footage showing the dazed and wounded Col Gaddafi gesticulating while being man-handled by rebel fighters.

Salem Bakeer told Reuters: "We went in and brought Gaddafi out. He was saying 'What's wrong? What's wrong? What's going on?' Then we took him and put him in the car." One fighter showed reporters a golden pistol he said he had taken from Col Gaddafi.

What happened next and how Libya's former leader died remains unclear.

What is certain is that at 16:30 local time, Mahmoud Jibril, the NTC prime minister, confirmed the news that Col Gaddafi was dead, saying: "We have been waiting for this moment for a long time. Muammar Gaddafi has been killed."

According to Mr Jibril, the colonel died just minutes away from hospital.

He later told journalists that a "forensic report" had concluded that the colonel had died from bullet wounds when the car he was in was caught in crossfire. "The forensic doctor could not tell if it came from the revolutionaries or from Gaddafi's forces," he said.

An interview with the commander of the brigade that captured Gaddafi suggests that the former leader died in an ambulance and appears to support the official version that he was killed in crossfire.

But a man claiming to be an eyewitness told the BBC that he saw Col Gaddafi being shot with a 9mm gun in the abdomen at around 12:30 local time and initial video footage seemed to show Col Gaddafi's body being dragged through the streets of Misrata.

Col Muammar Gaddafi was shot in the abdomen, according to a man who says he was there
Further amateur video footage has also emerged of a convoy of NTC fighters following an ambulance. The video includes scenes of soldiers celebrating with a man who they claim shot Col Gaddafi.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has said there should be a full investigation.

Her spokesman Rupert Colville told the BBC: "There are two videos out there, one showing him alive and one showing him dead and there are four or five different versions of what happened in between those two cellphone videos. That obviously raises very, very major concerns."