ABOLISH the ISA!

by Teo Soh Lung

In a 1991 interview with Malaysian journalists, then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was asked why the ISA was still needed even though the Communist Party of Malaya no longer posed a threat. He replied that if Malaysia abolish the ISA, Singapore would seriously consider abolishing the ISA.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong was appointed prime minister in 2004.

On 15 September 2011, the then Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Abdul Razak announced that he would abolish the ISA. Four days later, 16 former ISA detainees issued a joint statement calling on the Singapore government to abolish the ISA. See http://tinyurl.com/3cffbbs9. It was the first time that a group of former ISA prisoners detained from the 1960s to the 1980s had got together to issue a public statement.

I recall that it was not easy for former detainees especially those of earlier times to sign such a statement. Fear of repercussions was understandable. After all, they had already got on with their lives and have families to take care of. Let the past be the past. But the fact that the statement was signed by nine detainees of the 1960s and 1970s within a space of just a few days was evidence that at least, some of them have overcome fear.

The joint statement probably surprised the government. For the next few days, they planned their response.

On Saturday, 24 September 2011, The Straits Times reported the government’s reply in the Prime News page. It was quite impressive, half a page long with photographs of two of the signatories. Dr Poh Soo Kai’s photo was in the report. I think the government suspected Dr Poh to be the chief instigator of the statement and attempted to vilify him by repeating the lies that he went to Masai, Johor to treat a wounded Katong bomber. Subsequently, there were several reports of that incident in the media. I shall not bother to write about Dr Poh’s rebuttal to this big lie. You can read his response in his autobiography, Living in a Time of Deception which is published by Function 8 and has an electronic edition. The second photo was me. I was referred to as a “Marxist plot detainee”. Quite a compliment for a person who has still not read Das Kapital.

In 2012, Malaysia under much pressure, campaigns and protests from the people, non-governmental organisation like SUARAM and the Malaysian Bar abolished the ISA. In Singapore, there was no organisation or respectable academic or individual who called for the abolition of the ISA.

The Malaysian ISA was replaced by the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA). Critics often say that SOSMA is equally draconian. But this is not true. The law does not permit indefinite detention without trial. An arrested person must be tried in open court after being detained for 24 hours with at most, an extension of 28 days. Before the expiry of this period, the person must be charged in court for offences under relevant laws or be released. Note that despite the land size of Malaysia, the period for investigation of a person is 24 hours and not 48 hours in tiny Singapore.

More than a decade has gone by since Malaysia repealed the ISA. In Singapore nothing happens. The ISA continues to be freely used and no one protests, not even the Singapore Bar or non governmental organisations. Migrant workers and people as young as 15 years old have been arrested and imprisoned without trial. There is no outcry for these arrests and detentions. Indeed, some shameless academics even applauded the government’s actions and support the free use of the law.

The following persons are still being detained at the Changi Prison Complex. They are treated like convicted prisoners and subjected to 24 hour surveillance. This should not be the case and I hope those Justices of Peace who visit prisoners object to such treatment.

Name	Date of Arrest
1 Haji Ibrahim bin Haji Maidin	2001.12.00
2 Alauhuddeen bin Abdullah	2002.10.00
3 Mohd Aslam bin Yar Ali Khan	2002.12.00
4 Mas Selamat bin Kastari	2010.09.24
5 Masyhadi Mas Selamat	2013.10.00
6 M Arifil Azim Putra Norja’I (19 years old)	2015.04.00
7 Unnamed youth (16 years old)	2020.12.00
8 Amirull Ali (20 years old NS man)	2021.02.05
9 Radjev Lal s/o Madan Lal	2022.03.00
10 Mohamed Hassan bin Saynudin	2022.03.01
11 Mohamed Khairul Riduan bin Mohamed Sarip	2022.10.00
12 Unnamed youth (15 years old)	2022.11.00
13 Muhammad Irfran Danyal bin Mohamad Nor (18 years old)	2022.12.00

If my record contains errors, I hope the government can clarify. I had in the past written to the MHA but have not received any response.

It is easy for us to forget about people who are imprisoned without trial. Out of sight is out of mind. For now, let us remember that they are still in prison and their families are suffering grave hardship. Until we abolish the ISA, this law will always be used as a convenient and easy tool to put away people who the government knows that if they are tried in a court of law they will never be able to secure a conviction. They are therefor innocent and are being punished by the ministers who have no judicial authority.

Singapore is a peaceful country. Its citizens are not permitted to be in possession of weapons. Even carrying a pen knife is an offence.

ABOLISH THE ISA!

Mas Selamat and Detention Without Trial

by Teo Soh Lung

Singapore, a country that had independence thrust upon it in 1965, continues to use the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) to imprison any person without trial during peace time. This law which permits indefinite detention, was inherited from our colonial master in 1948. It has been frequently amended by the PAP government to ensure that the executive is free to do what it likes with the lives of people and that our judiciary have no jurisdiction over its powers. It is worth noting that though Britain introduced executive detention laws just prior to World War 2 with the enactment of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939, these laws were repealed soon after the war ended. Britain has thus done a great disservice to its colony when it introduced this law to us after World War 2.

Since 1948, executive detention has been freely used. Thousands have been arrested and imprisoned without trial. Unfortunately, we do not have the Freedom of Information Act and the exact number of those detained is not known. All records of detentions are kept by the Special Branch now known as the Internal Security Department. No one has access to these records. A couple of academics had been allowed to read selected documents, but no one has been able to conduct any research of the thousands that were detained.

I understand that ISA detainees today are treated like convicted prisoners even though they were not tried in a court of law. They are detained in the Changi Prison Complex. In earlier times, they were confined in Whitley Detention Centre where the cells were larger and some were allowed space that opens to the sky. Now they are confined to tiny concrete cells with cctvs operating 24 hours.

As information of release of prisoners are randomly published by the Ministry of Home Affairs, it is difficult to keep track of the number of prisoners now detained. It is sad that they have all been forgotten. But I think most of us remember Mas Selamat bin Kastari who escaped from the Whitley Detention Centre in 2008. He was arrested in February 2006. The Report of the Committee of Inquiry about his escape that was produced in parliament is to say the least, pathetic. It could not even ascertain the manner and route Mas Selamat took to escape to freedom.

On 24 September 2010, Mas Selamat was rearrested in Johor by the Malaysian police and escorted back to Singapore. He has since been in prison without trial. His son, Masyhadi Mas Selamat was arrested in October 2013 and there is no news of him since then. It is now more than 10 years.

There are about three ISA detainees who are in prison for more than 20 years. They are:

1 Haji Ibrahim bin Haji Maidin, a Condominium Manager, arrested in December 2001;

2 Alahuddeen bin Abdullah, arrested in October 2002; and

3 Mohd Aslam bin Yar Ali Khan, arrested in December 2002.

I have in the past written to the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding ISA prisoners. These letters have all gone unanswered. They did not even have the courtesy of acknowledging receipt. We have exceedingly rude and arrogant civil servants. They are paid millions and are not answerable to us!

As of today, subject to the confirmation of the Minister for Home Affairs, there are 13 ISA prisoners. What is their mental and physical health, no one knows. Were they tortured? No one knows. It is time that our minister reports to the public about their well being. He should not take advantage of the silence surrounding these detentions. He should tell us why after decades, they are still in prison without trial. If they have committed any offence, they should be charged in open court. If not, they should be released and compensated for their long incarceration.

Video that Debunks a Myth

by Teo Soh Lung (published date 11 May 2019)

I have not watched this video clip until today. https://vimeo.com/334210834

My first reaction to this video was one of disbelief and disgust. How can BG Lee Hsien Loong, then Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence speak about the arrests in 1987 in such a light-hearted and frivolous manner? The “Marxist Conspiracy” was supposed to have triggered a national emergency as those arrested were supposed to be dangerous subversives, intent on toppling the government using violent means.

Yet BG Lee found time to laugh and joke in this State sponsored television chat show. Male chauvinism is there for all to see. He mocked women and talked about enlisting them in national service, something he probably never thought of before the show. Shouldn’t he and other government leaders be huddled in a gloomy war room discussing how to quell a violent uprising? Only an asinine woman like Mabel Soh can laugh and mock her own sex.

I should not be angry at seeing this video clip. After all, 32 years have gone by! But I am angry because not only was I detained for no good reason in 1987 and definitely not for any national security reason, I was laughed at in public by BG Lee Hsien Loong and MP Chandra Das.

If anyone still believes that a Marxist conspiracy existed 1987, this video should debunk that state sponsored myth.

The documentary, 1987 Marxist Conspiracy directed by Jason Soo will be screened on Sunday 19 May 2019 at 2 pm at The Projector. There will be a discussion on fake news and 1987 following the screening.

Book launch of A Shift In The Wind

A Shift in the Wind was launched on 20 May 2023 at Palm Bistro, Singapore almost 40 years after it was written.

It was attended by several former ISA detainees who were arrested in 1987, accused of being “Marxist Conspirators” and planning to overthrow the PAP government, using “communist united front” tactics.

The significance of this publication was not lost on the audience, among them were several family members and friends of the political detainees.

This was the book that several of those detained were planning to publish before they were arrested at the dawn of 21 May 1987. It was forgotten until 1988 when eight of those  who issued a public statement denying the government’s allegations against them and claiming that they were ill treated were rearrested. Fear and objections from several members of the families of detainees prevented the publication of the book at that time. 

At the launch, Mr Chew Kheng Chuan spoke about the book which was handed over to the Internal Security Department upon its request. He said the director did not view it as a threat to the security of Singapore. 

Preparing for Livestream of the Event

Video of the launch coming soon. Do subscribe to our channel (https://www.youtube.com/@function8videos452/videos) to be informed of the video when it is ready.

Letter from Mr David Marshall

by Teo Soh Lung

In the process of decluttering, I found an interesting letter written by my former pupil Master, Mr David Marshall who was then Singapore’s ambassador to France. He had tried his best to secure my release from detention in 1987 and 1988. Unfortunately, he did not succeed. The ISA is a law that permits the government to imprison people indefinitely and without trial or any safeguard.

Mr Marshall was very kind and had great faith that I would do quite a bit of good if I continued to pursue. Regrettably, my legal practice had to shut down two years later and my intention of becoming a constitutional lawyer fell apart!

In the letter, Mr Marshall quite believed my television confession that I was being made use of by friends. These public confessions are evil. No detainee should have been compelled to appear on television or sign security statements so as to secure his or her release. The PAP government have a lot to answer for what it has done to thousands of detainees.

It is interesting that I did not let Mr Marshall’s impression pass and replied with a letter. I find my response reasonable and stand by what I wrote more than 30 years ago.

A Shift In The Wind review

by Christopher Tremewan

Winds of democratic change: interrupted but not extinguished?

Turning Good Citizens Into Exiles

by Teo Soh Lung

Singapore, a first world and very rich small country likes to claim itself as UNIQUE. Indeed it is unique in many ways. For one, it treats or rather mistreats its citizens who happen to have a social conscience in a way that no developed country would. It has deprived innocent citizens living abroad of their citizenship and turn them into political exiles?

In 1987, the PAP government went into a frenzy because it was alarmed at the political developments in neighbouring countries, notably the Philippines and South Korea. Dictators in those countries were overthrown largely due to the effort of the Catholic Church. The PAP government was worried and thought that a bunch of social activists volunteering with Catholic organisations and concerned with poor migrant workers would similarly overthrow them one day in the approaching general election which was held in 1988. It decided to arrest 16 people in May 1987 and then another 6 in June 1987 under the Internal Security Act (ISA). The PAP accused them of being Marxist conspirators planning to overthrow them. They labelled them Marxists and told Singaporeans and the world that they posed a national security threat to Singapore. They invented a story that the bunch of 22 people were manipulated by two Singaporeans who were then living abroad, namely Tan Wah Piow and Paul Lim.

Warrants of arrest were issued against them. Till today, those warrants have not been cancelled even though both Tan Wah Piow and Paul Lim have denied that they had anything to do with the alleged Marxist conspiracy. They were forced to take up foreign citizenship. In this shameful manner, the arrest of 22 people in 1987 have turned them into exiles. Both Wah Piow and Paul Lim were born in Singapore.

The policy of depriving Singaporeans by birth of their citizenship is unique. No country in the world has a law that can deprive a citizen by birth of citizenship except Singapore. This law contradicts international law. But Singapore being unique does not care.

To those unfounded allegations made by the PAP government in 1987, Paul Lim issued the following public statement in May 1987.

PAUL LIM’S REPLY TO THE SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT’S ALLEGATIONS

I am disturbed by the Ministry of Home Affairs’ statement concerning myself carried by The Straits Times of the 27th May 1987. I am also concerned for the 16 arrested some of whom I know. This is a statement of clarification and refutation.

My first refutation of these allegations is that subtract “Marxist conspiracy” and “Marxist conspirators” from them, they described legitimate activities for a Singapore citizen exercising his political rights. “Helping” an opposition political party is legitimate. So is discussing party politics. Are we living in a democracy or not?

“Marxist conspiracy” is only a pretext to detain these 16. I venture to say that the real reason for their arrests is in view of a coming election in which the PAP fears that its majority and dominant position would be threatened. Without Operation Cold Store of February 1963 the PAP would’nt have won the September 1963 general election. The PAP, having tasted power since 1959, wants to remain in power indefinitely. It cannot even tolerate criticisms and feedback from feeble church groups within the Catholic Church which is in a minority position in Singapore.

Secondly, the allegation of a plot or conspiracy from Europe is absurd. I believe that I have been brought into the Ministry’s fabrication of a conspiracy in order to link Tan Wah Piow to Vincent Cheng and the others as I was in Singapore physically at that time. The packaging with such words like “pass messages”, “reminding Vincent Cheng about Tan’s instruction” etc is the only way as the PAP has no factual grounds to substantiate any conspiracy or plot.

The fact that The Straits Times was able to publish notes of Vincent Cheng and a table with my name on it shows that there was no secret conspiracy. Conspirators do not leave trace around nor do they discuss at the top of their voices as I do in coffee shops in Singpaore within ear-shot of ISD agents.

Equally I never provided guidance to any of those arrested. Vincent Cheng and the others can think for themselves. They are not my or Tan’s puppets; neither am I at Tan’s bidding. They are civic-minded and upright citizens imbued by religious and humanist beliefs to be concerned with social justice for the less fortunate of society.

What the statement does not say is that in 1983, I was in Singapore for my PhD research at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. In this research I used The Straits Times library and interviewed PAP Members of Parliament, among them ex-Ministers and top civil servants. Will the PAP government now accuse me of conspiring with their own men against their own party? Will this revelation start the witch-hunting of those MPs, Ministers and top civil servants who met me? I have no intention of releasing the names of these people whom I interviewed for this academic purpose. I restate quite clearly that the research was the primary reason for my stay in Singapore.

This primary purpose of research does not exclude my rights to meet up with friends among the 16. Why can’t I socialise with them? Why can’t I talk politics with them legitimately and lawfully? In fact to have their views on the political developments of Singapore is also part of my research.

What I am afraid of is that these 16, maltreated and tortured pyhsically and psychologically, would confess to whatever their interrogators want of them and incriminate themselves and others including me. Only a court of law can determine the verity of a conspiracy or plot and this the Prime Minister himself has categorically refused. What has he to fear if he can provide proofs of the so-called conspiracy?

What does the PAP mean by this label of “Marxist” and “Marxist conspirator”? The PAP knows very well that it cannot accuse Vincent Cheng, the others and myself of advocating and the overthrow of the legitimately elected PAP government by force of arms to set up a Communist State nor can it accuse us of being members of the illegal Communist Party of Malaya.

So, what the PAP government seems to say now is that reading Marx is also a crime and enough to make one a mortal enemy of the PAP. Does the study of Marxism in the seminaries around the world make all priests communists and Marxists? In my academic work, I had had to read Marxist literature and mind you, in a Catholic university. In fact this Catholic university had allowed me to come up with a more critical and matured view of Marxism by confronting it with other currents of socio-political thought. At the same time, I had also to take a course in theology which is compulsory for all students. I think a good academic is one who has an all-round formation in the different currents of thought.

Further, Vincent Cheng, the other Christians and myself are the products of Vatican Council II which opened the Catholic Church to the modern world, ending the separation of faith and life. To be a Christian is not just Sunday Church-going but also bringing Christian values into daily living. Among these values is Christian justice translated as social justice for the poor and destitute. It is towards this “theology of justice for the poor” that Vincent and the others are striving. They are the prophets of social justice fulfilling the prophetic role of the Church.

In conclusion, I demand that I be removed from the wanted list of the ISA, that those detained be released immediately and congratulated for pursuing social justice for the disadvantaged in Singapore society.

Signed: Paul Lim

Ferme de Froidmont

1330 Rixensart

Belgium

Tel: 02/653.88.56

May 1987

Escape from the Lion’s Paw is available at Word Image.

Select Committee Hearing and Ministers

by Teo Soh Lung

Someone reminded me of this note I wrote. I share this largely because I have already forgotten that I responded to Adrian Tan who sadly has passed on. I don’t know him. I responded because I didn’t like his unqualified trust in ministers. Time and time again, ministers have failed us, the latest being the Ridout Road saga. They treat us like gullible little children. It is disappointing.

2nd November 2022

I would like to respond to just one point raised by Mr Adrian Tan, President of the Law Society of Singapore reported in TODAY’s article.

“Mr Branson declined the offer on Monday. Writing on his personal blog, he said: “A television debate — limited in time and scope, always at risk of prioritising personalities over issues — cannot do the complexity of the death penalty any service.”

In response, Mr Tan said that using the lack of time as justification was a “feeble excuse”, since the ministry would have given Mr Branson as much time as he wanted.

Furthermore, the debate would not be limited in scope, Mr Tan added. “The scope would be exactly what he’s been talking about: The death penalty in Singapore.”

I have personal experience of debating with ministers before the television cameras way back in 1986. I wasn’t invited to the partially televised debate. I was summoned to attend. In fact all members of my Legislation (Special Assignments) Sub-committee and the Council of the Law Society were subpoenaed before the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill 1986. The Select Committee comprised three ministers (including Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew) and five members of parliament.

Mr Adrian Tan’s confidence that the government will give Mr Branson “as much time as he wanted” and that the debate will not be limited in scope, “The scope would be exactly what he’s been talking about: The death penalty in Singapore” is misplaced.

Let me explain.

In 1986, all Members of the Council of the Law Society and its Special Assignments Legislation Sub-Committee were hauled before the Select Committee to discuss and debate on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill No. 20/86. Our subpoenas stated that was the purpose. It is a pity I do not have a copy of the subpoena today.

According to Mr Francis Seow, Council was well prepared to discuss the Amendment Bill and in fact nominated two council members to debate the said bill. They had earlier, submitted a report to the Attorney General even though the government did not accord them the courtesy of sending a copy of the that proposed bill before it was presented to parliament. I was told that the the bill was delivered to Council on the very day it was tabled before parliament, giving Council no opportunity to send their opinion.

Like Council members, members of the Subcommittee too were well prepared to discuss the bill with the Select Committee.

To our horror and disbelief, the Prime Minister and the other two ministers, Eddie Barker and Professor S Jayakumar were more interested in running down witnesses than elucidating genuine response to the bill.

From the word go, several members of the Council were grilled on their private lives and offences committed decades ago for which they had already paid the price with termination of employment, suspension of practice and resignations. The ministers claimed that such offences made them unfit to be members of Council FOR LIFE. Indeed, the bill was introduced primarily to ensure that Mr Francis Seow be removed as president even before his two year term expired. Why didn’t the government object to Mr Francis Seow being a Council member in 1976 and 1977? Why the urgency in 1986?

When I, as the Chairperson of the Subcommittee was called to the witness box, I was asked a load or irrelevant questions by the ministers. Was I a Workers’ Party member? Did I give donations to the party. Was I a polling and election agent. Worse, was I a Treasurer of a protem committee that was never registered and of which I had completely forgotten. What relevance do these questions have on the Amendment Bill? If they wanted to prove that I was manipulating the Law Society for a political purpose, they have failed miserably.

The ministers asked me at length, about my Committee’s report to the Law Society on the Newspaper & Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill which was aimed at restricting the distribution of foreign publications. It also questioned my involvement in another subcommittee reporting on the a term of reference involving the independence of the judiciary. What relevance were those questions to the Amendment Bill?

From this experience, I concluded that in any debate with ministers, there are no ground rules to be obeyed by them. They are free to ask irrelevant questions, tell untruths and half truths and deviate from the purpose of the debate.

Attorney General, Tan Boon Teik claimed at the commencement of the hearing, that he was already thinking of amending the Legal Profession Act as early as 1974 when the UK Solicitors Act introduced lay persons into the disciplinary process. He claimed that he too wanted to include lay persons in the disciplinary process then. Either his memory had faltered or the government had no intention to invite lay persons to discipline lawyers at that time, the law was not amended. I learnt this when I recently read Mr TPB Menon’s book, 60 Years at the Singapore Bar, Reflections & Ruminations. He wrote at pp 42 and 43 that as early as 1972, Graham Starforth Hill, then President of the Law Society had invited the Attorney General to amend the Legal Profession Act to allow outsiders to sit in disciplinary proceedings. Why didn’t the government take up his offer? Why make a big fuss in 1986?

Mr Branson is absolutely right to decline Minister Shanmugam’s invitation. It is pointless to debate with Singapore ministers. They make rules and laws for others to obey but they will not abide by them. I encourage Mr Adrian Tan to read the Report on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill 1986 to find out for himself the true nature of televised debates with ministers. Incidentally, what was televised was perhaps two hours of the two day hearing.

Finally, I must resurface the broken promise given by ministers.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr Francis Seow asked for a copy of the video recording. He told the committee “… I have been requested by several members of the Society to ask the Chairman, Mr Speaker, whether it would be possible for the videotape recordings made during these past two days to be available for them to be shown to the other members of the Law Society.

The Prime Minister: “No problem?”

Mr Francis Seow: “The object of the exercise is —“

Mr Barker: “The answer is no problem.”

I understand that despite various requests made by the Law Society, the video recording was not made available to the Law Society. Instead members were invited to Caldecott Hill to view the recording with the payment of $10 per head.

Perhaps it is time for the Mr Adrian Tan to request for a copy of the video recording. It should be of great public interest now that Mr Branson has declined the invitation to a televised debate by no other than the Minister for Law and Home Affairs. In the meantime, if Mr Adrian Tan is interested, he can read the parliamentary report.

A Shift In The Wind ebook

The ebook is available now!

Please go to this link to get a copy. It is in ePub format and supported by many e-readers.

Short synopsis: In the 1980s, Singapore’s first opposition member of parliament since 1966 was elected. A group of political observers sensing this “shift in the wind”, decided to lay bare the ideological threads that linked the PAP’s policy choices, governance approach, and by extension, the current social structures formed by the ruling government. The result was a book providing an overview of the local socio-political landscape. Written almost 40 years ago when a historical shift in Singapore’s democracy seemed imminent, the same hope echoes today as we see the opposition gaining more seats in Parliament after the recent 2020 General Election. The critiques of the government’s authoritarian tendencies and elitist meritocracism are even more relevant today, after more than 58 years of nation building under one party.

For a longer summary, please read our blog here.

The Commission Of Inquiry That Never Took Place

by Teo Soh Lung

I was just browsing the net and chanced upon the press release of our government issued on 20 April 1988, the day after eight former detainees of Operation Spectrum were re-detained for issuing a joint statement denying their intention to overthrow the PAP government and alleging ill treatment. Read this interesting statement here.

I was quite amazed that such a long statement was issued just to promise that a Commission of Inquiry would be set up. I remember that I was put in the cold room for many days. The ISD just let me sit in the cold room with nothing to do. Then one day a senior officer came in and told me that I must be happy that a COI has been called for. He was dismissive of the COI. I just kept quiet and wondered how the COI was going to do its business. I also wondered how the other detainees were going to give their evidence before the COI – whether they would confirm that they were beaten up or deny under duress that they were subjected to such treatment. I think I was also informed that my brother had filed a police report on the ill treatment I received.

Thirty-six years have gone by and no COI has been conducted. One of the 22 detained has already passed on.

I recall that after many days, one senior officer came to see me. He said all the others had given their statements and it is now time to record my statement. I was the last. He said: “I won’t ask you to say that you were not beaten up.” I replied that even if he did, I would not agree. And so the statement as a compromise, did not say whether I was beaten up or not beaten up. I suppose I was hoping that by doing so, I would be spared a long detention! How silly I was! My Malaysian friend, State Assemblyman Saari Sungib in launching my prison memoir Beyond the Blue Gate in 2011, gave this advice: 1. Never trust the ISD. 2. Never, Never trust the ISD; 3. Never, Never, Never trust the ISD! He is absolutely right.

Anyway, there was an internal police investigation into the allegations that I was beaten up. The report has yet to be released.

Now my purpose of writing this incidental piece is to inform that what several of the alleged Marxist Conspirators were doing were completely legal and this is recorded in their recently punlished book A Shift In The Wind. This book should have been published before the 1987 arrests. The writers then were naively expecting the winds of change after the 1984 General Election which saw the election of JB Jeyaretnam and Chiam See Tong into parliament after nearly two decades of one party rule. They were celebrating their victories, not knowing that the PAP were and are bad losers and would take their revenge almost immediately.

Read the book and know who these alleged Marxist Conspirators were doing before they were arrested. This book is available at Kinokuniya, City Book Room and Word Image. Price: S$15.