ISA: Act Of The Eternally Insecure

He is a man who has spent half his life without the full rights of a citizen. Imprisoned, then exiled, he was only released in 1998. Where did this happen, and to whom? It happened in a country whose government prides itself for putting the nation’s interest first; for achieving the status of a developed nation within two generations; for being able to do this by bringing into line dissidents of a Western (or overly Eastern, if they are communists) persuasion. Let us remember Chia Thye Poh, a fellow who stood on principle and refused to allow imprisonment, solitary confinement and exile to extract an apology from him for “the crime” of demanding a more democratic parliament in Singapore. Parti Rakyat Malaysia’s Ang Hiok Gai called him "The world's second longest serving prisoner of conscience," after Mandela. I beg to agree.

Detained in 1966, formal proceedings taken against him included insisting that he was not a Singaporean citizen due to his inability to produce a birth certificate (a common occurrence, surely, in that era). This gave grounds for a Banishment Order until the government dropped that in favour of insisting that he was an advocate of violent terrorist acts and had links with the Communist Party of Malaysia. Before Chia, numerous other arrests had already been made. Chia himself became a Member of Parliament when he replaced an arrested colleague in Barisan Sosialis (leftist, yes, but still a far cry from CPM). All this for leading a 30-man march to Parliament in order to file a paper demanding that elections be held and that political prisoners be released unconditionally, apart from other less-than-spectacular acts of insurrection, of which the government had decided that all were apocalyptic omens for fledgling Singapore.

In 1985 he was promised freedom if he publicly disowned the Communist Party of Malaya (he was previously from the Barisan Sosialis, not the CPM). He refused on the grounds that he had never been associated with them in the first place. Chia would not be released until 1998 when he was fifty-seven years old. Undaunted after 32 years, he immediately released a press statement (he was barred from doing so before) asking for the repeal of the ISA, citing its wrongful use to detain political prisoners.

Now now, save the applause. This is a patently unbiased article, and therefore this writer shall save the best for last. We ought really to applaud the efficacy of the government for protecting us from the dangers posed by people like Chia, who unthinkingly speak their mind and march up to parliament instead of ambling past it on the way to a riverside dinner, weighed down with the many choices for a good repast.

If you are tempted to think that the government’s watchfulness has grown lax with the escape of truly terrifying terrorists such as Mat Selamat, think again. The excellent protection afforded by the seamless co-operation of the judiciary and the executive arms has ensured that anyone threatening the current stability of Singapore’s excellently tailored democratic system is hauled into court without even requiring the high-handedness of the ISA. The current approach is far more subtle—hauling such dissidents in and out of court on defamation and contempt of court charges. We have before us the cases of Chee Soon Juan, his sister Chee Siok Chin and most recently, Gopalan Nair. Nothing escapes the eye of our ever-watchful government. Even three citizens bearing “this is a kangaroo-court” t-shirts were inoculated, just in case people were inspired to go hopping mad and rage against the powers-that-be. We obviously have no kangaroo court here, as the proceedings taken against the three individuals were real—just as real as the millions earned from defamation lawsuits against every journal that has “nepotism,” “dictator” and You-Know-Who on the same page.

In conclusion, the Internal Security Act allows those of us who are eternally insecure to feel safer, as anyone wearing the wrong t-shirts, saying the wrong words, will be arrested and brought to trial with satisfactory results. We should certainly agree to continue allowing our taxpayer’s money to go towards running trials which prove to us that the government will go to great lengths to stay in power for our own good.