ISA detainees got long term detention by their choice.
I know it will be offensive to many of you.
Can we read and think more before we discuss.
Few names have been used for many time and long time
to show the evils of ISA.
This article make leads me to think that did they get detained by
choice?
Those still in detention know that they are under detention by their
own choice. We do not require any confessions from them, for we already know
who they are. But our detainees know that their release is assured the moment
they are prepared to renounce and disavow the CPM’s use of armed force, terror
and assassination, as means of securing political change.This, a few of them at least, are not prepared to do.
Neither have they accepted offers to send them off
to any country of their choice. Obviously, for how do you contribute to the
CPM’s armed insurrection by accepting asylum in London, Amsterdam or
Stockholm? But you are welcome, Gentlemen, to offer them asylum in the moral
liberal atmosphere of your counties. And we wish you good luck, if you can
persuade them to accept your generosity.
CPM=Communist Party Malaysia
Chia Tyhe Poh is one of them refuse renounce using violence.
His reason is he has never had the intention of using violences.
Therefore,how can he renounce one thing he never possess?
The Cold War is over now in 2008.
Neither Communists is not a major threat.
Imagine you live in 1970's.
To show you the feelings of that period under the threats of
communisms,read this which is extracted from the same article:
Practically the whole intelligentsia of Cambodia has been wiped out, and the
whole population of Phnom Penh been violently uprooted.
FYI,it was estimated 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 people were
killed AFTER THE COMMUNISTS took over the country.
Note,the war was over.But million were still killed.
ISA was originally promulgated to tackle communism and deal with its declared threat to use force to overthrow peacefully elected democratic government.
Once communism collapsed not due to ISA of Singapore but due to the Americans' promotion of human rights and values, and democracy, and freedoms for people over the world, from oppressions, ISA has become redundant is no longer justified.
ISA should have been revoked and ISD disbanded. Its functions could easily be replaced by the normal criminal laws empowering certain deterrent acts against criminal elements like the terrorists
There is no need to use a sledge hammer to swap a fly. Even terrorists can be brought to justice under our criminal laws with some bites put in place to put away criminals like the Drug Act etc.
ISA like so many other laws were all part of the weapon used to control political oppositions as seen being used against so-called Marxist conspirators. There is no more rationale in jailing Chia Thye Poh. He has been a freedom idealist only with no proof against him for taking up arms to overthrow our government.
Originally posted by robertteh:ISA was originally promulgated to tackle communism and deal with its declared threat to use force to overthrow peacefully elected democratic government.
Once communism collapsed not due to ISA of Singapore but due to the Americans' promotion of human rights and values, and democracy, and freedoms for people over the world, from oppressions, ISA has become redundant is no longer justified.
ISA should have been revoked and ISD disbanded. Its functions could easily be replaced by the normal criminal laws empowering certain deterrent acts against criminal elements like the terrorists
There is no need to use a sledge hammer to swap a fly. Even terrorists can be brought to justice under our criminal laws with some bites put in place to put away criminals like the Drug Act etc.
ISA like so many other laws were all part of the weapon used to control political oppositions as seen being used against so-called Marxist conspirators. There is no more rationale in jailing Chia Thye Poh. He has been a freedom idealist only with no proof against him for taking up arms to overthrow our government.
ISD is an intelligence agency that does with domestic security. As long as our nation exist at the crossroad of the world, we will constantly face threats ranging from espionage, foreign subversion, terrorism to locals trying to break our racial harmony. Other than it's intelligence gathering role, the ISD has a executive function which is by the power of a number of acts (which includes the ISA) to arrest and detain perpetrators of those acts.
To say that the ISD is no longer relevent to Singapore is to say that threats such as espionage or terrorism no longer exist. Those threats exist all the time and as long as they exist, there must be a department to deal with it be regardless of it's name. The name of that department is ISD. However relevent it may be to Singapore, the work of ISD must be check so that the ruling party will not use it for it's political gain.
The ISD as a intelligence agency has a unique and contradictory characteristic. As a very powerful agency it must be check to prevent the misuse of it's power however it cannot be done so with great transparency due to the nature of it's work.
If you look overseas, there are other countries with similar agencies such as the british MI5, american FBI, australian ASIO and russian FSB.
ISD cannot be replace by ordinary domestic law enforcement agencies such as the Singapore police force due to the nature of their work. Certain work that it does may be outside the power and the ability of the law enforcement agencies or they are one of those work that requires controlled identity thats why a faceless intelligence agency need to come into play. Even if they manage to downsize ISD into one of our local law enforcement agencies that means to turn it from an agency to a department, the approach to their work is gotten be the same.
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
ISD is an intelligence agency that does with domestic security. As long as our nation exist at the crossroad of the world, we will constantly face threats ranging from espionage, foreign subversion, terrorism to locals trying to break our racial harmony. Other than it's intelligence gathering role, the ISD has a executive function which is by the power of a number of acts (which includes the ISA) to arrest and detain perpetrators of those acts.
To say that the ISD is no longer relevent to Singapore is to say that threats such as espionage or terrorism no longer exist. Those threats exist all the time and as long as they exist, there must be a department to deal with it be regardless of it's name. The name of that department is ISD. However relevent it may be to Singapore, the work of ISD must be check so that the ruling party will not use it for it's political gain.
The ISD as a intelligence agency has a unique and contradictory characteristic. As a very powerful agency it must be check to prevent the misuse of it's power however it cannot be done so with great transparency due to the nature of it's work.
If you look overseas, there are other countries with similar agencies such as the british MI5, american FBI, australian ASIO and russian FSB.
ISD cannot be replace by ordinary domestic law enforcement agencies such as the Singapore police force due to the nature of their work. Certain work that it does may be outside the power and the ability of the law enforcement agencies or they are one of those work that requires controlled identity thats why a faceless intelligence agency need to come into play. Even if they manage to downsize ISD into one of our local law enforcement agencies that means to turn it from an agency to a department, the approach to their work is gotten be the same.
I think you have strayed off to some other issue by referring to existence of threats from diverse sources.
The key issue here should be whether ISA which gives extraordinary power to the government without justification for arrest without warrant or detention without trial is desirable and lead to abuse.
I do not think ISA was promulgated because other countries have MI5 or FBI so we too must have them.
I do not think too ISA was conceived because we as a country need to deal with external threats with higher power over citizens as well alongside to deal with external threats like espionage.
We can always have specific laws dealing with treason, espionage or external threats etc and confine the arrest without warrant to certain cases of such nature under those respective laws to deal with crimes against the state.
It is not so right to apply ISA to the general population for almost any form of threats which can be easily abused to over-power the citizens for dissent or political participation process.
MI5, FBI or other such-like organizations are not directed at their own citizens if these organizations have any extraordinary power to arrest anyone without trial at all. In any event in countries like UK and USA their governments are subjected to legal and constitutional check for any abuses so even if they have extraordinary power over foreign threats like espionage etc these will not likely to be abused against ordinary citizens like the church members who happened to be vocal or critical of government.
In UK or Australia their police too are subject to rights and freedoms of citizens not being infringed under the constitutions or laws such as the harbeas corpus. If we must have ISA we have got to have safeguards too such as these countries have to prevent abuse of power against own citizens or dirty vendetta by dictatiorial regimes everywhere.
It is noted you have agreed too there is a possibility of abuse of ISA to put away people of political threat to the government in power.
That is enough for us citizens to ask for disbandment of ISA for the possibility of abuse is real and it will lead to overall abuse.
We have to look at the larger picture to see to it ISA may not result in our eventually creating a dictatorial regime.
May be that is one reason why up to now we are not able to see a more open, accountable or transparent precisely because of ISA as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Think of the larger picture.
Originally posted by robertteh:I think you have strayed off to some other issue by referring to existence of threats from diverse sources.
The key issue here should be whether ISA which gives extraordinary power to the government without justification for arrest without warrant or detention without trial is desirable and lead to abuse.
I do not think ISA was promulgated because other countries have MI5 or FBI so we too must have them.
I do not think too ISA was conceived because we as a country need to deal with external threats with higher power over citizens as well alongside to deal with external threats like espionage.
We can always have specific laws dealing with treason, espionage or external threats etc and confine the arrest without warrant to certain cases of such nature under those respective laws to deal with crimes against the state.
It is not so right to apply ISA to the general population for almost any form of threats which can be easily abused to over-power the citizens for dissent or political participation process.
MI5, FBI or other such-like organizations are not directed at their own citizens if these organizations have any extraordinary power to arrest anyone without trial at all. In any event in countries like UK and USA their governments are subjected to legal and constitutional check for any abuses so even if they have extraordinary power over foreign threats like espionage etc these will not likely to be abused against ordinary citizens like the church members who happened to be vocal or critical of government.
In UK or Australia their police too are subject to rights and freedoms of citizens not being infringed under the constitutions or laws such as the harbeas corpus. If we must have ISA we have got to have safeguards too such as these countries have to prevent abuse of power against own citizens or dirty vendetta by dictatiorial regimes everywhere.
It is noted you have agreed too there is a possibility of abuse of ISA to put away people of political threat to the government in power.
That is enough for us citizens to ask for disbandment of ISA for the possibility of abuse is real and it will lead to overall abuse.
We have to look at the larger picture to see to it ISA may not result in our eventually creating a dictatorial regime.
May be that is one reason why up to now we are not able to see a more open, accountable or transparent precisely because of ISA as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Think of the larger picture.
All i had mentioned above are to justify the need for ISD because u call for it to be disband.
I hope u know ISD and ISA are two different issues. While one is an act, the other is an agency. ISA is just a power that ISD has in which has other power given by numerous acts including the cpc, the official secrets act.
It seems like u are unhappy with the ISA and not the ISD or u are linking one to the other?
Internal security act must be abolished.
It is an oppressive law.
Security act must go, says victim of 32-year ordeal
Originally posted by foxtrout8:All i had mentioned above are to justify the need for ISD.
I hope u know ISD and ISA are two different issues. While one is an act, the other is an agency. The current existence of ISD is more than just to enforce the ISA.It seems like u are unhappy with the ISA and not the ISD or u are linking one to the other?
I am aware of your point. Therefore I have in reply confined my discussion on justification or otherwise for continuing existence of ISA upon realizing you were in favor of existence of ISD not necessarily ISA.
Originally posted by robertteh:I am aware of your point. Therefore I have in reply confined my discussion on justification or otherwise for continuing existence of ISA upon realizing you were in favor of existence of ISD not necessarily ISA.
Thank you robertteh.
I think we need the power of the ISA. In certain security senarios, we may need to effect arrest and detention despite minimal evidence and subsequently detain them without trial for investigation and for rehabilatation. Such scenarios do exist because as the pepertrators constantly evolve trying to evade by our legal limits, we must have acts that are almost without boundary to out do them.
Americans as liberal democrats are excercising their version for terrorist suspects in Guantanamo bay detention camp in which detainees were arrest on mere suspicion and then detain and interrogated with force. Trials given to them are all in private which therefore does not ensure fairness. Of course we have Abu Ghraib as another example. I think it shows that necessary confinement against human right are at times necessary. It is unfortunate that some people are held wrongfully and innocently in the foreign land and i pray for their soul.
I think the problem with ISA is not with it's irrelevence but on how to regulate it so that the innocent will not be harm. The ISA must also be one that work for the country's interest and not the political interest of somebody.
More transparency must be given to justify the need to detain the subjects. So far so good with the terror suspect because i dont believe they were detained for any other reasons other than their terrorist intentions. Transparency and the availability of a committee for check and balances must be in place to ensure that in the future there will not be question marks as evident in the Chia Thye Poh incident for example.
I think we shouldnt abolish the act but must change the system to ensure ourselves that any future execution of the act must be accountable.
I think the point with saying 'great power comes with great responsibility' is not so much about power but about the need for responsibility