Power to Detain
-
The Internal Security Act (ISA) of Singapore allows the Executive to order detention (without charge or trial) of any individual deemed to be a threat to the security or economic life of the state. The individual may be detained for not more than 2 years and this may be extended for a further period or periods not exceeding 2 years at a time, and in short, indefinitely.
Yes of course we will agree with MM Lee that "Stability does not come naturally to Singapore. We are perculiarly vulnerable. If our balance of security and stability is shattered, it is doubtful that if we on our own can ever put Singapore together again" ,which is why we need the Internal Security Department (ISD).
However, there is no real safeguard against abuse of power, for which The Advisory Board under the Act has no power and no court can question the subjective judgement of the minister who issues the order of detention.
Mr Chia Thye Poh, previously a university physics teacher, was detained in 1966 at the age of 25. This led to 32 years of LIFE being taken away, including 22.5 years of detention in various prisons, followed by 3.5 years of internal exile to Sentosa Island and another 6 years of restriction on the mainland. It took the ISD 32 years discover that Mr Chia's conduct "suggests he is unlikely to engage in activities prejudicial to Singapore's security".
As of 2006, 37 individuals were still being detained without trial for the Singapore embassies attack plot uncovered in December 2001. Only four had been released on restriction orders. 37 terrorists? Or are there individuals who have a life, family and bright future having their life wasted and decimated?
Amnesty International,which campaigned for Mr Chia Thye Poh since 1969, believes that Chia Thye Poh's 22.5 years' detention without trial, and the subsequent prolonged restriction of his freedom of expression, association and movement, are a potent symbol of the oppressive effects of the ISA on Singapore's political and civil life. The ISA remains at the heart of a formidable array of legislation which restricts the ability of Singaporeans to enjoy fundamental human rights. Such laws continue to effectively deter Singaporeans from expressing dissenting political opinions, or from participating in political life without the consent -- overt or tacit -- of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP).
Of course we need laws to prevent and suppress troublemakers, but I believe that our PAP or our people can come up with a win-win solution. Any suggestions?
Link: http://www.roarofthelions.blogspot.com -
Hitler II wrote:
Yes, we can agree with MM Lee that stability is important and there has to be safeguard against instability from lawlessness, injustices, high-handedness and abuse of power and corruption.
The Internal Security Act (ISA) of Singapore allows the Executive to order detention (without charge or trial) of any individual deemed to be a threat to the security or economic life of the state. The individual may be detained for not more than 2 years and this may be extended for a further period or periods not exceeding 2 years at a time, and in short, indefinitely.
Yes of course we will agree with MM Lee that "Stability does not come naturally to Singapore. We are perculiarly vulnerable. If our balance of security and stability is shattered, it is doubtful that if we on our own can ever put Singapore together again" ,which is why we need the Internal Security Department (ISD).
However, there is no real safeguard against abuse of power, for which The Advisory Board under the Act has no power and no court can question the subjective judgement of the minister who issues the order of detention.
Mr Chia Thye Poh, previously a university physics teacher, was detained in 1966 at the age of 25. This led to 32 years of LIFE being taken away, including 22.5 years of detention in various prisons, followed by 3.5 years of internal exile to Sentosa Island and another 6 years of restriction on the mainland. It took the ISD 32 years discover that Mr Chia's conduct "suggests he is unlikely to engage in activities prejudicial to Singapore's security".
As of 2006, 37 individuals were still being detained without trial for the Singapore embassies attack plot uncovered in December 2001. Only four had been released on restriction orders. 37 terrorists? Or are there individuals who have a life, family and bright future having their life wasted and decimated? (currently, 39 individuals are detained under ISA for suspected involvement in terrorism and espionage)
Amnesty International,which campaigned for Mr Chia Thye Poh since 1969, believes that Chia Thye Poh's 22.5 years' detention without trial, and the subsequent prolonged restriction of his freedom of expression, association and movement, are a potent symbol of the oppressive effects of the ISA on Singapore's political and civil life. The ISA remains at the heart of a formidable array of legislation which restricts the ability of Singaporeans to enjoy fundamental human rights. Such laws continue to effectively deter Singaporeans from expressing dissenting political opinions, or from participating in political life without the consent -- overt or tacit -- of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP).
To make things worst, there is the discussion of an amendment that the SAF will be empowered to search, detain and use reasonable force against terror suspects. This Pandora's box contain exigent issues such as abuse of power and subjective judgment of the personnels empowered.
Of course we need laws to prevent and suppress potential threats to our society, but I believe that maybe we can start to think of win-win alternatives, such that in protecting our citizens' lives, we do not take away any Singaporean's life. Any suggestions?
If there has been an open and accountable system where such causes of instability are properly studied and accepted by our representatives in governing a country and relevant safeguards provided through the general laws and penal codes, then there could be justice for all.
If the causes of instability are not even properly understood and only dependent on the interpretations of someone we do not even know, then such a power can lead to abuse which is one of the key causes of instability of society or lawlessness which is what ISA is seeking to prevent in the first place.
Up to now, people still do not know whether Chia Thye Poh is a communist or indeed if he was a self-confessed communist did he possess any weapons of violence like bombs or guns which he intended to use it to overthrow the government.
We also did not know up till now whether the so-called marxist conspirators who were arrested indeed have resorted to immoral or unconsienable means or any violence to overthrow elected (GRCed) government.
Is writing one's own pay cheque or NKF malpractices one such key causes of instability of law and order. If so, shouldn't perpetrators (taking monies from taxpayers without voting) be facing the trial by ISA as well.
In China such taking of public monies by official without proper approval by the state could face the firing squad. -
Well.... lets put it this way. Before Sept 11th, the USA and British always have some kind of complaint against our ISA. But when 9-11 happens, they now find that they can't arrest or detain suspect due to not HAVING a law like ISA. A question we must ask ourselves.... do we want to wait for a act of terror to happen before we act....
or stop it before it could happen..... -
Originally posted by hloc:
Yes communism was bad at one time and some strict laws were necessary to prevent people from taking part in undesirable subortage against the state or laws and orders.
Well.... lets put it this way. Before Sept 11th, the USA and British always have some kind of complaint against our ISA. But when 9-11 happens, they now find that they can't arrest or detain suspect due to [b]not HAVING a law like ISA. A question we must ask ourselves.... do we want to wait for a act of terror to happen before we act.... or stop it before it could happen..... [/b]
Yes, terrorism is bad and there has to be some extraordinary power given to the state to take preventative actions against anyone engaging in such activities.
But just because of communism or terrorism do we want to give some general sweeping powers to servants of the people to use it without accountability and transparency to arrest someone deemed a communist or terrorist just like that.
If there is a possibility of such an abuse will we want to create that possibility.
We can always enact an Anti-terrorism Act which strictly prohibit anyone from carrying on activities of terrorisms but there is no justification to use terrorism as an excuse to grant undefined rights of assumptions or presumptions that someone is a communist or terrorist for that will be dangerous as abuse of power can become a bigger problem than communism or terrorism.
If we want to ensure laws and orders we need to give the state certain powers to control and prosecute criminals.
But do we want to let the servants of state deem who is a criminal or who is taking taxpayers' monies without their consent and ought to be prosecuted by firing squad.
Government officers and ministers are servants of the people and they should not be granted higher rights and that will lead to civil disobedience against government because of injustices or abuses of power by the state. -
Sorry... I prefer 'Safety' from would be terroist, then let would be terroist have more rights. My personal view......
-
The ISA has to stay.
But it's powers should be limited to strategic threats and counter-terrorism.
I would also propose dropping the mandatory death penalty and replacing it with detention without trial for drug traffickers, period as deemed fit by the President. -
Personally, I don't see any justification for nonsensical legislations like ISA - counter-terrorism is not a good enough excuse IMO.Originally posted by LazerLordz:The ISA has to stay.
But it's powers should be limited to strategic threats and counter-terrorism.
I would also propose dropping the mandatory death penalty and replacing it with detention without trial for drug traffickers, period as deemed fit by the President.
The ISA mandates anyone can be detained without trial (or just cause as to how his conduct is a threat to national security) for a period of up to 2 years, which can be extended indefinitely for a maximum term of 2 years at a time, with the approval of the Home Affairs Minister.
I can think of absolutely no offence which warrants the ISA simply because anyone who is believed to have reasonable cause of having committed a crime (and I mean real crimes, not nonsensical "crimes" mandated by the criminals in power) can be charged in a court of law, with the full backing of the legislation and the appropriate penalty meted accordingly. How anyone can make a case for someone being detained for 2 years without sufficient evidence being brought against him for his alleged crime is beyond me.
The ISA is merely a smokescreen used to mask the criminal practices by the criminals in power who obviously haven't got sufficient evidence to prosecute the suspect in a court of law. -
Certain detainees may not be brought to open court because intelligence operations may be compromised.
If for deterrance sake, the ISA is still useful, as long as the habeaus corpus panel has great latitude in deciding prisoner status. -
Unfortunately, ISA is liable to being abused and it has been abused for far too long.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Certain detainees may not be brought to open court because intelligence operations may be compromised.
If for deterrance sake, the ISA is still useful, as long as the habeaus corpus panel has great latitude in deciding prisoner status. -
I think I better shut up from now on.
-
That's sadly true. Though strictly speaking, it hasn't been used for political purposes for around 20 years now.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Unfortunately, ISA is liable to being abused and it has been abused for far too long.
The wide interpretative notion of the ISA opens itself up for abuse. -
Not exactly 20years. I recall that incident involving social activists was in the late 80s. However, they have since switched to exiling people from Singapore, much like Tang Liang Hong who reported death threats.Originally posted by LazerLordz:That's sadly true. Though strictly speaking, it hasn't been used for political purposes for around 20 years now.
The wide interpretative notion of the ISA opens itself up for abuse. -
There're precedences of such cases around the world where people have been tried for espionage and treason in a court of law - with the corresponding penalties meted out - without having the evidence leaked to the public (such trials will normally not be open to the public). Basically, in such cases, the suspects are still subjected to a free and fair trial without being arbitrarily detained without a substantial rhyme or reason. Although proponents of the ISA would draw parallels with what's happening at Guantanamo Bay, I don't think the two examples merit direct comparison because the contextual application of the practice is different.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Certain detainees may not be brought to open court because intelligence operations may be compromised.
If for deterrance sake, the ISA is still useful, as long as the habeaus corpus panel has great latitude in deciding prisoner status.
The underlying principles for such due judicial processes are integral in upholding the principle whereby the right of an individual is not subservient to that of the state. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
Chia Thye Poh claimed that in all his 32 years of incarceration, he was regularly taunted with freedom if only he will make a sworn statement that he will renounce violence.
Up to now, people still do not know whether Chia Thye Poh is a communist or indeed if he was a self-confessed communist did he possess any weapons of violence like bombs or guns which he intended to use it to overthrow the government.
It seems that the charges of him being a Communist was no longer pursued, and only that he should renounce violence only.
Why would Chia not make such a simple statement but prefer to be physically removed from Singapore Society, locked up in isolation, and let off under severe restrictions to personal freedom of association and movement ?
He said "To renounce violence is to imply you advocated violence before. If I had signed that statement I would not have lived in peace."
Similarly, the case against Said Zahari is seemingly suspect, after considering the revelations from Martyn See's efforts in giving Said Zahari the opportunity to present his side of the interpretations that led to his arrest and 17 year incarceration.
While LKY and his team live in luxurious splendour, with full personal security paid by the State, he will pronounce the ISA to be applied without any conscience against his political opponents - that even included his previous State Solicitor-General Francis Seow.
Should such an inhumane law be allowed to be used as a tool for political repression applied against ordinary Singaporeans, who participate in politics legally and credibly - and who dare to challenge the status of the Ruling Political Party ?
Does the supposedly independent Advisory Board consist of personalities with the political independence and political clout to stand up with their own independent minded assessments on the real threat of those incarcerated under the Internal Security Act ?
Do the members of the Advisory Board have the political strenght to face up and overturn the accusations that LKY and his Political Party had levelled against those whom they seem as potential political threat to their own security and survival in Singaporean Politics ?
Similarly, those who were accused as Marxist Conspirators were less inocuous then the members of the Ruling Party in creating political instability with their personal actions.
We also did not know up till now whether the so-called marxist conspirators who were arrested indeed have resorted to immoral or unconsienable means or any violence to overthrow elected (GRCed) government.
The term 'Marxist Conspirators' was a convenient reference at a time when the Catholic Church was active in the political arena, using its moral authority to correct injustices in society as was the ''fashion'' during the 1980s in countries such as the Philippines, Latin America, and even in South Korea.
The Leader of a Church - with its moral authority and large congregation - could easily serve provide Political Leadership and organisational base to challenge the status of a Government, as was seen in the Philippines Cardinal Sin leadership in the People's Power revolution in overthrowing the Philippine President F. Marcos - which strikes a nightmarish fearis in the heart of the Singapore Political Elite if any such event should happen in Singapore.
Amongst those arrested was a brilliant young lawyer - Ms Teo Soh Lung - who provided capable behind the scene support to JBJ in his political campaigns, and she gave a brilliant display in Courts during the confrontation of the Law Society with LKY.
It was churlish of LKY to use the ISA to wipe Teo Soh Lung off the political scene by accusing her of mixing religion and politics. Is Singaporean free from religion as one is involved in politics ? It will seem that those good Christians and Budhists in the Ruling Party have correctly suppressed their religious teachings and correctly separated their religious moral values from their political responsibilities to the Ruling Party and to the State.
Conscience, moral values, and religious guidance have no place in Singapore Politics unless prescribed and sanctioned by LKY - as in his convenient and cynical promotion of Confucianism.
The pay check was cleverly arranged to be approved by a Parliament that is stuffed by a members from a single party - which dominate Parliament, and rubber stamping all Bills presented by the Executive Branch of the Government.
Is writing one's own pay cheque or NKF malpractices one such key causes of instability of law and order. If so, shouldn't perpetrators (taking monies from taxpayers without voting) be facing the trial by ISA as well.
In China such taking of public monies by official without proper approval by the state could face the firing squad.
All personal objections and conscience are fully aired but all members of the Ruling Political Party are expected by its Party Whip to vote according to Party instructions.
In China, they can afford to execute 1000 citizens a month - all those whom they charge as guilty, can Singapore afford to be less forgiving to those who are supposed to possess rare Talents ? -
Atobe,
If Chia Thye Poh had been a communist, and he did not admit to be one but was presumed to be one, then what is this kind of adjudication. What is justice? Is there any act of wrong committed against a citizen.
In the old days, a person who refused to admit guilt can be punished with 50 strokes of the rod. If he was guilty but still stubborn, he would be punished. What if he is really innocent, can be still be punished?
Leaders are always concerned with laws and orders as without rule of law, there will be chaos.
It is sad that innocent or unproven prosecution can be incarcerated indefinitely even though communist threats today are long over and done with.
So to uphold law and order, must an unproven charge be presumed against any citizen just to allow the judge to look right. Is this justice or what the judge was employed for in the first place.
If the judge carries on beating and jailing the innocent without a time frame in order to prove his judgment has been right even through his judgment has been wrong then what will happen to law and order in such a country.
Can anyone still believe the leaders that ISA was needed or actually used for the purpose of ensuring law and order. -
What will happened to CSJ and all opposition parties?
-
I agree we need to give the president something to do. But lets not allow the job to decide on the lives of traffickers justifies further increases in his salary. Drug trafficking is a multi-billion $ business in the whole region.Originally posted by LazerLordz:The ISA has to stay.
But it's powers should be limited to strategic threats and counter-terrorism.
I would also propose dropping the mandatory death penalty and replacing it with detention without trial for drug traffickers, period as deemed fit by the President.
we also have to ensure that he does not drink excessively. he can always find another job and we can elect another president, but lives lost will be lost forever. -
Hi hloc,Originally posted by hloc:Sorry... I prefer 'Safety' from would be terroist, then let would be terroist have more rights. My personal view......
I believe that your personal view is understood and respected by everyone. However, in the name of deterrence from possible threats, will you be willing to be detained without trial if you were suspected to be involved in some illegal operations? And that the length of detention to be indefinite? According to the ethical principal of reversibility/reciprocity, you will be willing to be put under the same circumstance as what you find acceptable for others to be put through."
Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
Christianity: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4
Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
Humanism: "(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."
"(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. " 4
"Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society. 3
Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 5 -
O ya btw, does anyone know Mr Chia? I wonder how the exile to Sentosa Island tastes like. Something like Terrence Steadman in Prison Break?? Hope we can have him here, but well, we might have 'eyes' looking at this forum too. [/b]
-
Hi Hitler II...... long & short of my answer will be NO......Originally posted by Hitler II:Hi hloc,
I believe that your personal view is understood and respected by everyone. However, in the name of deterrence from possible threats, will you be willing to be detained without trial if you were suspected to be involved in some illegal operations? And that the length of detention to be indefinite? According to the ethical principal of reversibility/reciprocity, you will be willing to be put under the same circumstance as what you find acceptable for others to be put through."
NO, I don't want to be arrested......
NO, I'm not into any illegal activity.....
NO, I don't think the Govt has been behaving like a dictator, the prove being that most of us here are not under arrest or anything....
NO, I still believe prevention is better than cure, the JI case prove it.
NO, the world is not fair..... and all those u QUOTED are Ideas from GREAT man about a perfect WORLD...... But sadly, this WORLD is far from perfect.
btw..... the same Great Man you quoted from now have followers who insist that you join them or die...... so much for following ethical principal of reversibility/reciprocity -
Originally posted by hloc:
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. -Benjamin franklin
Hi Hitler II...... long & short of my answer will be [b]NO......
NO, I don't want to be arrested......
NO, I'm not into any illegal activity.....
NO, I don't think the Govt has been behaving like a dictator, the prove being that most of us here are not under arrest or anything....
NO, I still believe prevention is better than cure, the JI case prove it.
NO, the world is not fair..... and all those u QUOTED are Ideas from GREAT man about a perfect WORLD...... But sadly, this WORLD is far from perfect.
btw..... the same Great Man you quoted from now have followers who insist that you join them or die...... so much for following ethical principal of reversibility/reciprocity[/b]
It is obviously that you are not putting your leg in the victim's shoe, that's why you have not objected how the law mistreated the victims. From the case we seem above, it has shown some form of extreme that the ISA has gone into of detaining without trial. -
Hi (human)......Originally posted by (human):Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. -Benjamin franklin
It is obviously that you are not putting your leg in the victim's shoe, that's why you have not objected how the law mistreated the victims. From the case we seem above, it has shown some form of extreme that the ISA has gone into of detaining without trial.
Yes, I not putting my 'legs' into the "Victim's shoe".... Why ?? Because some of this 'Victims' will think of nothing putting Bombs in their's shoes to take down a plane..... Some of those 'Victims' will think of nothing when they rig a car with bombs to kill us for nothing more than to make a point about the WEST..... Has the ISA been used against CJS, JBJ or Chaim Has someone ever came to your home and ask you to join them for coffee at the ISD HQ If not..... then I felt safer having the ISA around.
btw..... I too believe that as any Law, the ISA could be abused. But I don't think the Govt have abused it...... yet -
I shall not blame you. Some people are born blind of not seeing the truth.Originally posted by hloc:btw..... I too believe that as any Law, the ISA could be abused. But I don't think the Govt have abused it...... yet -
Thxs.... just like i too find some will see darkness in the light of day. Good day to U....Originally posted by (human):I shall not blame you. Some people are born blind of not seeing the truth. -
The idiots will reap what they sow, really.Originally posted by hloc:Thxs.... just like i too find some will see darkness in the light of day. Good day to U....
And the ignorant will have their cheese stolen.