Ex-ISA detainees has no issue of being detained in the first place ?

https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/how-hp/ex-isa-detainees-has-no-issue-of-being-detained-in-the-first-place-/2437804267168

Below is the ex-ISA detainees’ statement and MHA rebuttal. 

The question I have in mind is , in the ex-ISA detainees statement , they only took issue with the length of the detain but did not claim to be wrongly detained. 

So does that mean that they have no issue of having been detained in the first place and they deserved to be detained ?

========================================================== 

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4966-former-detainees-abolish-the-isa 

We welcome Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s announcement that his government would repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Emergency Ordinance. He said the changes are aimed at “having a modern, mature and functioning democracy which will continue to preserve public order, ensure greater civil liberties and maintain racial harmony.” We look forward to the Malaysian Prime Minister fulfilling his promise to his people. 

Singapore inherited the ISA from Malaysia. This law has been in existence for more than half a century and its impact on society is both crippling and pernicious. Its life began soon after the Second World War as the Emergency Regulations in 1948 when the British used it to put down strong anti-colonial movements. In 1955, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance incorporating the Emergency Regulations was passed. When Singapore joined Malaysia in 1963, the Federation of Malaya’s Internal Security Act 1960 became part of our law. 

The Ministry of Home Affairs claims that: 

    “ … A person arrested under the ISA in Singapore may be held in custody for up to 30 days after which an Order of Detention or Restriction Order must be issued or else the person must be released unconditionally. 

    In Malaysia, the period of custody is up to 60 days…” (ST 17.9.2011) 

This comparison is irrelevant because political detainees in Singapore have been imprisoned for periods which far exceed those in Malaysia. Dr Chia Thye Poh was imprisoned for 26 years. Dr Lim Hock Siew was imprisoned for 20 years. Mr Lee Tee Tong was imprisoned for 18 years and Dr Poh Soo Kai and Inche Said Zahari for 17 years. 

The Ministry further claims that the Advisory Board is a safeguard against abuse under the ISA. 

The protection accorded by the Advisory Board is spurious, if not a farce. Several of us have appeared before such a board and can confirm that the board did not examine witnesses and evidence against the detainee. In 1987, appearances before the board lasted not more than a few minutes each. Furthermore, detainees were discouraged from appearing before the board by ISD officers. Many were advised that appearing before the board would jeopardise their chances of early release. 

Singapore has many existing laws that will deal with acts of terrorism. We have the Penal Code, the Sedition Act, Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, Vandalism Act and after 9/11, the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act and the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act. These laws provide severe punishments which include death, life imprisonment and caning. 

In 1991, then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, “Singapore will seriously consider abolishing the Internal Security Act if Malaysia were to do so”. He made this response to seven Malaysian journalists in his office when asked why the ISA was still needed in Singapore even though the Communist Party of Malaya no longer posed a threat. (ST 3.2.1991.) Now that Malaysia is repealing the ISA, we call upon PM Lee Hsien Loong to translate his 1991 statement into reality and keep in step with the aspirations of our people for a mature and functioning democracy. Indefinite detention without trial is an affront to the human rights of citizens and an assault on our justice system. 

    Dated this 19th day of September 2011.
    Dr Lim Hock Siew
    Dr Poh Soo Kai
    Said Zahari
    Lee Tee Tong
    Loh Miaw Gong
    Chng Min Oh @ Chuang Men-Hu
    Tan Sin alias Tan Seng Hin
    Toh Ching Kee
    Koh Kay Yew
    Vincent Cheng Kim Chuan
    Teo Soh Lung
    Yap Hon Ngian
    Tan Tee Seng
    Low Yit Leng
    Wong Souk Yee
     Tang Fong Har 
=================================================== 

http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=MjEwMw%3d%3d-%2f7PvT0v%2fGAI%3d 

Press Releases 

23 September 2011 

Ministry of Home Affairs Press Statement on ISA, 23 September 2011 

Sixteen ex-ISA detainees issued a joint statement on 19 Sep 2011 taking issue with the length of detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and also the ISA Advisory Board process. 

2 These sixteen ex-detainees were not detained for their political beliefs, but because they had involved themselves in subversive activities which posed a threat to national security. Nine were actively involved in Communist United Front (CUF) activities in support of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), which was committed to the violent overthrow of the constitutionally-elected governments in Singapore and Malaysia. They infiltrated legally-established organisations like trade unions and student associations, and instigated illegal strikes and demonstrations to cause mayhem and civil strife, to complement the CPM’s armed revolution. In 1974, one of them provided medical assistance to a CPM saboteur who was hiding in Malaysia. The saboteur had been conveying a bomb for an attack in Singapore, and was travelling along Still Road (Katong) when it detonated prematurely, injuring him and killing his two accomplices. Such was the volatile and dangerous security situation then prevailing in Singapore. Following the CPM’s call in 1968 to its underground networks to return to armed struggle, new CPM organisations were formed in the 1970s which included killer squads to carry out sabotage, assassinations and other acts of violence. 

3 In the 1980s, seven of the sixteen ex-detainees were involved in a Marxist plot to subvert and destabilise Singapore. The plot was part of the CPM’s renewed efforts to rebuild the united front by penetrating and manipulating legally-established organisations. Three of them infiltrated and manipulated several religious organisations and, exploiting the religious cover, pursued activities towards subversive ends. They worked with others, including leftist elements from the CPM era, to build a covert network to promote a Marxist agenda, using united front tactics to control and influence organisations engaged in religious and social activism. Five of these ex-detainees swore Statutory Declarations concerning their past activities. 

4 On the issue of length of detention under the ISA, whether a person’s detention is extended depends on whether he still poses a security threat. For example, detainees who refused to renounce violence were detained for longer periods until they were assessed to no longer pose a security threat to society, whereas others who renounced violence and no longer posed a security threat were released much sooner. 

5 The allegation that “the protection accorded by the Advisory Board is spurious, if not a farce” is baseless and unwarranted. The Advisory Board is chaired by a Supreme Court judge, and scrutinises every detention case to satisfy itself that there are valid security grounds which warrant detention. Members of the Board are appointed by the President and the Board enjoys the immunities and powers of a court of law. It examines representations from detainees and their legal counsel, studies the evidence including classified intelligence, and examines witnesses including senior ISD officers when it deems necessary. These safeguards were further enhanced when in 1991, the elected President was given the power to veto the Government’s decision to detain a person against the recommendation of the Advisory Board. Indeed, the Board has on several occasions made independent recommendations for the early release of detainees, including three of the sixteen ex-detainees. 

6 The external security environment and the threats to our national security have evolved with changing times and circumstances. In the CPM era, armed communist insurgencies, transnationally motivated and supported, infected countries throughout our region. The communist threat was not just violent insurgency but also the systematic subversion of the political arena to foment civil strife and de-stabilise the country. We also encountered cases of espionage, and cases where a foreign power or agency tried to subvert Singa¬pore’s domestic politics. From time to time racial and religious extremists, sometimes externally supported and instigated, sought to provoke racial conflict and subvert our ethnic harmony. Today, we face the threat of jihadist terrorism, not only from Al-Qaeda-linked clandestine groups like the Jemaah Islamiyah but also from self-radicalised individuals. 

7 A small country, open to external influences and located in a turbulent region, will always face security threats. Their nature will evolve over time. The ISA and its use have likewise evolved as Singa¬pore’s circumstances, vulnerability and risk tolerance change. While the Government certainly monitors developments in the laws and systems of other countries, on a matter as important as security it ultimately has to decide based on what is prudent and necessary in Singa¬pore’s context and is in Singa¬pore’s best interests. As an instrument of last resort, the ISA has enabled us to counter serious security threats, protect our people, and preserve our racial harmony and social cohesion. It remains relevant and necessary in today’s evolving security environment, for keeping Singapore safe and secure. 

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS 

23 SEPTEMBER 2011

Advertisements

about perception….. only a perception….

 PM Lee: “..the responsibility of a Member of Parliament is not just to repeat wh…at others say, it’s also to think for yourself, to have views of your own, and to express those views fearlessly. “

WP MP: I said it is only a perception

WP MP: I am talking about perception.

By: Enigma

https://www.facebook.com/singapore.enigma#!/singapore.enigma

Comments collected :

1.      so its either a fact or not. if its a fact, pls show them and provide constructive feedback. if its not a fact, pls dont waste everybody’s time! i dun understand why the work practices we do everything in the real world just doesnt apply to our oppositions, be it the opp MPs or the PE candidates!  if i had worked like them, i would have been fired !

2.     what ” perception” ! how can a big opposition party head just simply used “perception” in the things he talked ! i can also use lots of perceptions should I then become a political party head ?

3.     I think WP boys watched too much “Inception” and got the wrong perception. 🙂

4.      When someone pads his speech with “I’m not here to score a political point”, you can bet your last dollar he’s doing exactly that.

5.      The two of them are prime examples of wrongful or woeful conceptions. LOL!

6.     Delusions! Left hand slapping right cheek and vice-versa!

7.     We need thinkers, not parrots. Everyone should be responsible for their own words and action. They should stop using the general public perception and assumption to defend what they say. I doubt they can read our minds.  : )

8.     The fact remains that sometimes, people as a whole, may not know what is best for themselves. All are just clamouring for personal rights, needs, wants and demands in isolation of one another in the immediate future without the necessary foresight for long term sustenance or survival, let alone to progress and flourish!

9.     on some blogs that they report numbers ! they simply just read some numbers on surface and scream out loud that we got a problem ! this is where they keep scaring Singaporeans.. even good statistics can become bad statistics once the oppies report on the net

10.     ‎*Sigh* It’s so easy to be the Opposition party….especially when they are so conniving.

Singaporeans are suffering …

Comments from the nets :

“Singaporeans are increasingly suffering from a new syndrome of Oliveritis where the sufferer is increasingly asking for more and more of everything to their own benefit…” MG Chan Chun Seng – Acting Minister for MCYS

1.     Consumerism!

2.    The over-indulgent pre-occupation with “stuff”!

3.      The ‘surge’ is partially due to the influence of the oppies. Oppies promote ‘distribute wealth’, ‘workers first employers out’, ‘ government must feed all Singaporeans’, and some others. It is influencing Singaporeans to become more complacent, problems go to government.

4.    Have these people who just want More and More of “Entitlements” ever thought of where the money is going to come from? Workers First; Employers Out? Who is going to employ workers then? State ownership of all means of production? Backtracking China’s route to Economic dominance? OMG!!!

5.       another quote from MG Chan: “Money has to come from somewhere and Money is not an indefinite resource! In order to benefit one party, we have to “Rob Peter to Pay Paul”… So who will be that “Peter” if there are no profit making enterprises?”

6.       The numb-skulls will say, “The Reserves! That’s where ALL OUR money is!”.

7.       How much within that Reserve have been contributed by You? And compare that amount against what have been contributed by Temasek Holdings and GIC… Yes, they may have lost money in some investments… but No, they have not LOST YOUR MONEY!!!

8.      They forget that the Reserves are enough to cover the entire principle sum in the CPF. But they might still retort the minuscule interest rates as well as demand the whatever TH and the GIC have earned are from investing THEIR money.

…  without TH and GIC investing with what was their money, they wouldn’t have had interests on their CPF in the first place so to speak isn’t it?

9.     Human needs are unlimted but resources are limited. Only the wise and fittest will survive.

10.     Now many Singaporeans are asking for things no longer their basic needs.. i am fine if they enjoy life with more things, but don’t complain.. it is not like government got to pay for their enjoyment !

11.      Singaporeans are getting more demanding and ridiculous. They want everything under the sun and moon and the best is to give them the whole universe.

But at what price? 

解读陈硕茂议员的国会开场白 – 吴大地

http://www.zaobao.com.sg/yl/yl111031_001.shtml

《联合早报》10月20日的社论 “国会辩论令人耳目一新”写道,“陈硕茂清晰地理清了数个关键政治概念,如爱国不是任何政党的专利;多元不会造成政治分裂,不包容的强权心态才会;培养独立精神与服从强势权力之间的矛盾;在野党有其反对和监督政府的正当角色等等。他的唐太宗与魏征的比喻,也形象地说明异议在政治上的重要性。他的这些观点,是对执政党的期待。”

  我立刻去找了陈硕茂的国会发言中英全文来看。我的解读与早报社论不尽相同。这里,我谈谈个人的观感。

  陈硕茂用华语发言时说,我国许多领导人认为新加坡有政治分裂,不利于团结与将来发展。他接着问,“各位想想,这分裂是怎么造成的? 是因为社会出现了不同的声音,还是因为不能包容不同的声音才会造成分裂?”又说,“一个好的领导者,只要有信心,有正确的方向,有好的道德与能力把政绩做出来,人民自然会乐意跟着他走。不需要害怕国家分裂,强调团结。”

  对我们这些出生于上世纪40年代,经过建国前后风风雨雨的老新加坡人来说,这样的说法未免天真。现实政治,真的有那么简单吗?只要政府交岀漂亮的成绩单,能够包容不同,国家就不会分裂?

  试想一下,我们能够包容那些与我们“不同”的“回教基本教义者”或者“族群主义者”吗?只要把国家治理好,我们就可以让他们在这里公开散布他们的思想、招募信徒,而不必担心国家分裂吗?

  凡是对群众“部落情绪”稍有体会的国人,相信都不会接受这种简单的治国理论。台湾的蓝绿、泰国的红黄、美国国会里的不顾全国利益的党争,都是活生生的现成教材。断层线纵横交错的新加坡,国小民寡,能经得起这样的折腾吗?对这类易发难收的星星之火,当政者能掉以轻心吗?我国政府在建国初期,如果像陈议员那么潇洒轻松,相信这个小岛早已四分五裂。哪里还有今天的新加坡。

书生议政不能当真

  竞选时那种“只看旗帜,不讲道理/公义”的现象,企图撕裂新移民与本地人的言行,直到今天还在蔓延。唯恐天下不乱的言论,天天充斥网络。这种情势,能教人不担心吗?

  所以有人说,书生议政,有时只能当他唱歌,纵然悦耳动听,却万万不可当真

陈议员在他的中文讲词里,有意无意的替执政党披上“黄袍”。他用“贞观之治”的例子,把执政党喻为唐太宗,自贬为谏官魏征。同时又说了一些“党外无党,帝王思想。”,“爱国的权利不是任何一个政党可以独占的。”诸如此类的话。给人一种他在和一个专制君主对话的印象。

  政治开放是我国的大方向,近年的步骤越来越快。鼓励民众参与讨论,欢迎不同的建设性意见,早已是社会的共识。记得在大选以前,总理和部长都公开说过,有建设性的反对党,对新加坡是件好事。他们也着手改变制度,以确保国会有更多的党外声音。同时大幅度放宽政治言论空间与媒体的管控。

     而陈议员却在这里讲授民主政治101,“在民主社会里,有不同的意见,不同的建议,是很自然的事情。这也是好事。”

  陈议员还煞有其事的劝告当政者,不必“防民如防贼”,仿佛这里是金正日的朝鲜。其实,只要看看网上那些天天出现,把部长骂成是狗、什么“乱臣贼子”的网络言论,就可以知道当政者的宽容程度。

  陈议员对浅显的道理,似有偏好。 例如他说 “真正完整的人格、独立的精神,是不可能在一个凡事听从独大的执政党,凡事唯唯诺诺的环境生长。”这些路人皆知的道理,难道还有人不知道吗?

  记得,公共服务委员会主席张赞成(Eddie Teo )曾在《海峽时报》(2009年7月25日)发表的一封公开信中说过,有一些政府奨学金候选学生在面试时,言不由衷,企图揣测遴选者的心意,力求答案“政治正确”。他说这种做法是基于对遴选要求错误的理解。公共服务委员会要找的,不是那些没有原则的“应声虫”(yes-men),而是能独立思考,有道德勇气的未来公职官员。

   陈议员在国会殿堂上“教老奶奶吸蛋”,他的目标听众(target audience)相信不是国会里的政治精英吧?比较有可能的,是那些不耐烦听复杂理论的民众,或者是那些对新加坡没有深入了解的人/外国人。

  陈议员的英语讲辞的话语氛围与其华语版本,不大一样。用英语发言时,他赞赏地引用杨荣文与总统的话以及施政报告。虽然他的目的是在为反对党的操作空间打拼,不过也显示了他对政府包容多元的大方向,是认同的。

  纵观全文,他与政府的看法,可说是相当一致的。例如,他大篇幅的谈论人力资本的投资,呼吁“投资于新加坡人。投资在新加坡的未来。(Let us invest in Singaporeans. Invest in the future of Singapore.)”。这正是行动党当政以来的施政强项。也是今日新加坡成功的主要原因。

  陈先生这篇开场白,似乎没有什么创新的具体建议,只在重申与演绎那些大家早有共识的政治哲学与公共政策。所以有论者说他徒发空言,不是完全没有道理的。

我个人觉得,反对党人公开背书政府的公共政策,是件好亊。不过如果他们肯下点功夫,深入研究,提出一些实质的建议或者批评,那才比较像世界级的反对党。

作者是自由撰稿人

Comments collected :

1.    ‎[各位想想,这分裂是怎么造成的? 是因为社会出现了不同的声音,还是因为不能包容不同的声音才会造成分裂?”]

Well, the PAP Govt has built up this country to a 1st world now. Them people, start to preach & teach our Govt to have to learn to “包容“ – “tolerance”. The fact that we are able to live side by side with each other of different races, show that our Govt has done an excellent job in building tolerance, hasn’t it? Where was Mr CSM during the racial riots?

Perhaps, Mr CSM should first go preach to his supporters to learn to “包容” foreigners and not cook up a pot of curry to stir.

2.     [我国政府在建国初期,如果像陈议员那么潇洒轻松,相信这个小岛早已四分五裂。哪里还有今天的新加坡]

Of course, now that Singapore is already a 1st world country, Mr CSM & his gang can just sing song, sing to the tune of the so call ‘poor’, stir up all the emotions and play the “Mr Nice Guy” and hopefully one day able to take over the seat of the emperor.

3.    说啥?难道孔子降世于陈硕茂? 🙂

Transportation fares of Polytechnic students – case study

A case study of Transportation fares of Polytechnic students.
Target group: Polytechnic students
Please take this survey seriously. Thank You =)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dENwdjF2YS1kY0F5amZQY2tmUUswWGc6MQ

Comments collected :

1 .    judging frm the response i think i’m the odd one out who feels it’s logical to have a higher pricing for poly students.

2.     had dialoque session with MG Chan. He said for cheaper transport fees for poly students, Govt need to take money from paul and give it to peter.. hahah ..

3.     I just realised that JC/ITE students are paying the same concession fee as secondary students.

What is the rationale of having POLY students paying more than their same aged peers? (let’s put aside adult students first)

Perhaps we should have another tier that group JC/ITE/POLY students together.
Eg, Current – concession pass for JC/ITE is $52.50 (bus+train)
POLY students’ concession pass is $97 (BNT). That is a difference of $44.50?

Group JC/ITE/POLY together and have the concession pass at a figure b/w $52.50 & $97. Eg, if there is 1 JC + 1 ITE + 1 POLY , TOTAL $202/3 = $67? Of course, actual figure will have to be worked out clearly with more info. But in this way, to me,makes more sense, unless i’m convinced with the rationale of having POLY students paying more.

4.   The only thing I can see why POLY students are paying more is coz they are being grouped with the University students under tertiary.  But a U undergrad is min 19 for girls. For boys, they cld be easily 21 (after NS) and there are far more real adults in U than POLY?

5.    some argument points out that, between A levels and poly students, it is easier for poly grads to find jobs outside… employers prefer those with diploma than those with As. So JC, is traditionally not an ending point for most students, as many will continue to university. Whereares poly, will enter the workforce after graduation….

6.   that deosnt means poly student have to spend their future unclear salary?  beside in real life, not all poly student work while they are studying..

7.    Maybe there should be a distinction between working and non-working poly students. I’m sure there shouldn’t be any loopholes as students who need to work would welcome the grant whereas those who needn’t wouldn’t rush to find work just to qualify for the concession grant? And of course, there’s the age limit.

8.      I feel that the poly students shd be grouped with the JC/ITE students. But by doing so, there needs to be an increase of fare from the JC/ITE group to balance off the difference . Then, what do we get – outburst from them – “Not again!” – transport fare increase again!

9.    Do you think Adult fare payers will be happy to see another hike in fares just to allow poly students to enjoy the same concessionary rates as the others? And mind you, they form the majority of the population and the voting majority as well…

10.    Simply put, the government cannot please every single citizen. We have to look at the numbers carefully.

11.    Put it in the good way, poly student want to be treated like adults. So pay adults fare.

12.    poly student have better time to market value then JC student. Thats why poly student can wear beautifully to study and JC student have to wear uniform. In real life, a lot of things we are paying for future value then the actual current value. one of them is housing. and more common the service industries. I myself used to be poly student. understand how poly student feel. If you want to enjoy lower transportation fare, study hard and earn a JC place.

13.    As poly student,after u start to work .you will find diploma is not enough. How much a poly student earn? put it in another way. I am trying to encourage ppl here. Only with a degree, money will start kicking in. Many will say paper is not everything but. Paper does help put a person in a good position to go a long way.

14.    U grads earn much more than poly grads and thus U undergrads should be made to pay more than POLY students? Why are they paying the same?

15.   time to market value mean shorter time to bring a student to earn money. If you open the recuit and see, the pay for a degree and a diploma is a great different. the higher the education level the higher pay, but that does mean that u grads have to pay more. transportation is for the mass. and not link with what pay you have.

16.     I think it is fair for poly students paying same consession as jc/ite students BUT under 1 condition, tt is one enters poly immed after the O-level (age 17-20 under normal circumstances). Those who pick up eduaction after few yrs of work, whether he is full-time or part-time students will not be entitled

You can help by note down this number – 1800 222 0000. MCYS Hotline

 Please note down this number: 1800 222 0000. MCYS Hotline. If you come across such cases, please call MCYS.

If possible, try and stay till the MCYS officials are on the scene before you leave. Sometimes, there are people who are on the lookout for MCYS officials and will inform the poor folks to leave if they see MCYS officials coming.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=305168379509589&set=a.144055345620894.25994.100000492883350&type=1

“Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to just make a point of clarification on Mrs Lina Chiam’s point about the old lady selling tissue papers. She mentioned about different locations, which could be the hawker centres or public places.

As the Mayor of the North East CDC, and also on behalf of other mayors, I would say that these are the cases that we probably have to deal with or engage with on a daily basis. The point to clarify is that the Government is not out there to put fines on these individuals. The policy as regards hawking is to make sure that there are no unlicensed hawkers out there and to make sure that the public places are orderly and not chaotic.

But for individuals, like the old lady selling tissue papers, we have seen such cases and for some of them, they have their personal options and they make a choice. But I do agree that for others, they may need help. And I am always very delighted, or I would say heartened, that people can send us messages to highlight certain individuals (old lady or old man) who are hawking around with tissue papers. How do we approach it?

We do not give them a fine.

We send officers down, to talk to them, and see what they need. In fact, just last week, I received another message through Facebook that actually highlighted that there was this lady selling tissue papers and needed help. Immediately, we sent our officers there, tried to talk to the lady and see what she needs. And it turned out that she needed some financial assistance and so, we helped her.

So, it is with that compassionate approach that we deal with the issue. If not, organisations like CDC would not have been set up. We are really set up to build this safety net for every individual that needs help.” – Mr Teo Ser Luck, 12th Parliament

First World Parliament – Mr Lee Kuan Yew

“We want to have a First World parliament for Singapore, so we need to have a First World government and a First World opposition. If you want us …to treat you as gentlemen, argue on the merits of your policy and our policy. Take it to a higher level and we will treat you accordingly and respond accordingly,”

Lee Kuan Yew, 24 April 2006