Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
New Mandala contributor Lim Li Ann details the disturbing situation of arbitrary detention in Singapore.
Between July and August 2015, two Singaporeans, Muhammad Shamin bin Mohamed Sidek, 29, and Muhammad Harith Jailani, 18, were detained for allegedly planning to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). With extremism on the rise, the United States struggles to temper the panic-buying of more guns, Malaysia expedites the passing of the controversial National Security Council Bill, while Singapore prides itself on being a maverick. The Internal Security Act (ISA), wielded against both men, enables preventive detention and permits incarceration for two years without trial.
Arbitrary detention provides the Executive with unchecked powers of detention, ironically relegating the Judiciary to a lower order by use of law. By definition, individuals under “preventive detention” may not have committed, or be likely to commit offences against the regular criminal code that would warrant imprisonment. Activists lament the two-year preclusion against detainees from claiming their right to a judiciary.
“I think all detainees should be given a trial. If the government have evidence, give them a trial,” asserted Dr. Poh Soo Kai, twice detained for a total of 17 years.[1] He was accused of plotting a “Communist conspiracy” to subvert the government during his leadership in an opposition party in the 1960s. However, Dr. Poh recalled that ISA detainees could barely exercise fundamental human rights, “They’ll (prison officers) tell you it’s only privileges – no rights.”
Many ex-ISA detainees have shared anecdotal claims of torture. In a joint statement by detainees of a 1987 mass arrest, they asserted that “[m]ost of us were hit hard in the face” and that they “were made to stand continually during interrogations, some of us for over 20 hours and under the full blast of air conditioning turned to a very low temperature.” President of local human rights organisation MARUAH, Braema Mathi expresses that these “account[s] of torture … should be investigated”.[2] However, the burden of proof often lie on the victims themselves, not the state, as recommended by the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
Teo Soh Lung is one of 22 victims of the 1987 mass arrests. In her 2010 memoir, Beyond the Blue Gate: Recollections of a Political Prisoner, she explains that ex-detainees had alleged inhuman treatment but could not substantiate their claims, putting themselves in a bad light.
Figure 1: Press release by the Ministry of Home Affairs in response to the join statement by ex-detainees (Click to see full image)
Here’s the rundown – “No witnesses, so no case,” Dr. Poh explained.
ISA detentions transpired en masse every decade until 1987, when a decade-long lull was observed. However, since December 2001, there have been at least 74 known ISA arrests — all of whom are Malay, Muslim men. The transition – from imprisoning political detainees to targeting alleged “self-radicalised Singaporeans” – began after the 9/11 terror attacks.
Figure 2: Arbitrary detention in Singapore. Annotations show periods of mass arrests (click to see full image)
The government only publicises arrests on a discretionary basis. Harith was arrested for his alleged “intention to carry out armed jihad”. For “express[ing] unstinting support for ISIS”, Shamin was detained “to assess if he posed a threat to Singapore’s security”. This was expressed by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 30 September 2015; there has been no updates since. Despite the lack of transparency, Singapore has not had any notable protests.
Peter Low is a human rights lawyer and counsel to two ISA detainees in the 1980s. “The ISA is an odious and an out-dated piece of legislation,” he argued, “It is a fundamental departure from the rule of law and principles of good governance. It suspends the protection of personal liberty guaranteed in the Constitution.”[3]
But, at the advent of extremism worldwide, the opposition minority – human rights activists and ex-detainees – struggle to elicit public empathy towards human rights violations against detainees, while the government comfortably depicts the law as a security tool against “international terrorism, foreign subversion and espionage”.
In a recent public lecture, Ho Kwon Ping, a detainee in the 1970s but now a prominent businessman, suggested reining in the powers of the ISA by reducing the initial detention period from two years to one. Despite refraining from calling for the abolition of the law, Ho was rebuffed by fellow Singaporeans who reiterated the government’s own rhetoric — national security concerns.
Disagreeing with Ho in his letter to the Straits Times Forum, Singaporean Chua Soon Hock asserted, “I am proud of our unique, effective security measures in this increasingly lawless and vulnerable world.”
The opposition minority – human rights activists and ex-detainees – are troubled by such apathy, helpless in face of public complacency that prioritise purported security over civil liberties. According to a study by MARUAH, no political party included the abolition of ISA in their manifestos for the nation’s 2015 General Elections. This reflects public sentiment that juxtaposed to socio-economic issues like healthcare and housing, arbitrary detention is not a “bread-and-butter” issue.
Nonetheless, the prevalence of public apathy does not translate to the irrelevance of campaigns against arbitrary detention. By principle, the ISA is analogous to “lawlessness within law”. By practice, the civil liberties of ISA detainees cannot be guaranteed. The alleged torture is akin to an extrajudicial “second sentence”, exacted upon detainees without judicial review
The full research for this article is reflected in the chapter on arbitrary detention in The History of Human Rights Society in Singapore, 1965–2015. The book will be available by Routledge in late 2016.
[1] Personal interview, Poh Soo Kai, 9 September 2015, Singapore.
[2] Personal interview, Braema Mathi, 3 November 2015, Singapore.
[3] Email interview, Peter Low, 5 October 2015, Singapore.
Li Ann graduated from Singapore Management University with a Bachelor of Science in Economics, and a second major in Public Policy in 2015. She is a co-author of the chapter on arbitrary detention in the forthcoming book, “The History of Human Rights Society in Singapore, 1965-2015”. She can be reached at [email protected]
Hi Li Ann, I’d rather feel safer with suspected terrorists (extremists) held in custody than have zealots walking free along the streets of the city carrying homemade bombs on them. Would you prefer advocating for ‘human rights’ in this respect at the expense of a Brussels Bombing/Paris Attacks happening in public spaces of the island state. C’mon, would any ordinary citizen plan for a trip to Syria when there are multitudes of refugees attempting to flee from that place. Thanks.
0
0
The country’s stance against terrorism, self-radicalised individuals and terrorist inspired ideologies is compliant with the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) resolution condemning extremists’ behavior. The resultant refugee crisis in Syria is also monitored closely by the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR) and United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). What standards of human rights violation would Ms Li Ann be referring to.
0
0
How would you define “suspected terrorists”? The real question is whether one believe in the rule of law – arbitrary detention without trial is an abberation of principle of rule of law. Believing in rule of law doesn’t mean that one condone terrorism. It is precisely the intolerance of it that we cannot condone state terrorism on its people. Picture this – what happen when a new government use detention without trial to make sure that the overthrown government do not come back. The problems you mentioned cannot be use to rationalize the use of an archaic law, a regulation which was basically a tool of British colonial administrator to quell the demand for independence – adopted into law and were used to suppressed political opponents, abusing security apparatus for political ends.
0
0
Which government would not consolidate its own power.
0
0
Good government consolidates its power by uniting its citizens around good governance, championing social justice and embraces diversity, inclusiveness and rule of law. Bad government consolidates its power via abusing law and manipulating the legislature, divide and rule. Detention without trial is a very divisive and unjust law. Bad government must be opposed.
0
0
Let’s go with shrewd governance! Anyways, there’s no such thing as ‘bad governance’. That’s tyranny to me. TGIF!
0
0
Yes, I am sure Singapore has no common criminals or Islamic extremists and all detentions are arbitrary. I am sure that tune will change very quickly when all these budding human rights activists who are so learned, lose a parent or other relative from homicide or terrorism, not unknown to Singapore, just unknown for NM readers.
0
0
Combating terrorism has developed into the formation of an international coalition, larger than any individual nation’s efforts alone. Both citizens and governments must take an active part in fighting against this threat.
0
0
Surprise that such poor quality arguments made it way to this website and thread. The evidences we have is that thousands of lives were incarcerated, ten of thousand of family livelihoods disrupted and destroyed. Yet the state is unable to produce a shred of evidence
that can stand the court of law?
0
0
Singapore is a success story, especially as compared to the two Islamic nations in its neighborhood. Could it be that ISA arrests have contributed to that success? And that terrorist attacks on Singaporeans have been thwarted by those arrests?
0
0
Many of you are already conflating several concepts as well as addressing strawmen. Whether arbitrary detention has prevented terrorism or not has nothing to do with justice or due process.
First of all, if any of the detained are actually terrorists, how would them having a trial reduce safety? They would be in custody anyway, but have an avenue of recourse in case theybwere wrongfully accused (which dozens of individuals actually were.)
Secondly, it’s easy to talk of security as a bystander. But suppose you were wrongfully detained? How would you prove your innocence if you were not given any due process? I can hear the apologist arguments bawling and mewling already. “Hey hey if you don’t do suspicious things you wont be arrested!”
Well, how would you know what is suspicious? You know you won’t be arrested by cops if you don’t break the law, and you know exactly what the law is. But suspicion? Who defines and who decides it? Many detainees were merely doing charity work and had no idea they would be kidnapped and tortured, and when they protested their treatment after their release, they were immediately rearrested. All this while, dear PM gleefully howled on national tv: “if they feel they have been mistreated, they are free to open up an inquiry against us”.
Also, if you observe most other real world cases, arbitrary detention, torture, or citizen surveillance doesn’t help prevent terrorism much, if at all. Just because we haven’t been hit, what proof is there that this is due to the ISA? None at all, but a presumptive correlation with no internal consistency.
This wave of Islamism is an ideological war and we must battle their doomsday cult wishes with our enlightenment values, not devolve into an authoritarian state that looks exactly like the terrorist state we are trying to defend against. These arrests are not useful, grossly unjust, and not reflective of a modern democratic society that respects the rule of law and the inviolable right of the citizen.
0
0
Mr. Gan, you are very naïve about Singapore and terrorism.
0
0
I back my positions up while you bawl pathetically with no reasoning or evidence. But i expected little better from an incumbent apolpgist as yourself. Just so you know, I cpild have made your argument fifty times better than you did, and answered if fifty times as comprehensively.
0
0
Besides rhetoric on the efficacy of statutes or fancy debates on details of the actual carrying out of the ruling, the high standard of national safety and security observed by this nation is something to be envied and admired by many other countries. Singapore’s well defined borders also somehow makes this State seem impenetrable.
0
0