On 21 May, 1987, sixteen young Singaporean professionals and their families were shocked to be woken from their sleep in the early hours of the morning by Singapore’s secret police from the Internal Security Department hammering on their doors and breaking in. They were then dragged to underground cells where they would be detained for many days of round-the-clock interrogation including physical and psychological abuse without access to lawyers or families. And then the secret police came for more young Singaporeans…
The reaction of the international community was an outpouring of support for the detainees that was immediate, spontaneous and global. This took the Singapore government by surprise and it paid a high political price internationally for its brazen disregard of human rights. The claim that there was a Marxist conspiracy in Singapore was simply unbelievable to most international observers. That period was long gone.
But, within Singapore, it did achieve its goal of frightening a new generation of socially-committed Singaporeans into political submission so that the PAP could more easily transition to its own new generation of leadership without facing an emerging electoral challenge. The cost to those targeted so unjustly was severe, affecting the rest of their lives.
This saga was documented by various organisations. The Emergency Committee for Human Rights in Singapore, based in New Zealand, began sending out news releases which became regular Updates sought after by international organisations, embassies, parliamentarians and NGOs around the world, many of which launched their own formal enquiries and protests. The Updates comprise the main content of these archives and provide a public record of events as they unfolded.
For the first time, these records enable everyone to gain detailed knowledge of this dark stain on Singapore’s political history.
Politicians love power and wish that they can hold on to power forever. They are mostly ruthless and do not hesitate to enact and use laws that legitimise illegal acts so as to achieve their aims.
One of the most repressive laws used and continues to be used by the PAP government is the Internal Security Act (ISA). Lee Kuan Yew had no qualms locking up his young friends who helped him found the PAP but who later opposed him because they disagreed with his policies. He nipped them in the bud not because they were communists loyal to the Communist Party of Malaya or terrorists out to destroy Singapore but because he feared losing power to them. He imagined that he would be subjected to torture should they form the government.
In TALL ORDER, THE GOH CHOK TONG STORY vol 1 p. 209, Goh said of the political prisoners of Lee Kuan Yew.
“They said they were heroes: ‘We played a part in Singapore history’. Yes, they played a part. They can claim to be heroes. But if they were in charge, where would we be? As Mr Lee said, my fingernails would be pulled out. When we are in charge, they just get locked up and get fed by the state. We released them, so the ex-detainees must defend what they did.”
The victims of Lee were tortured and imprisoned for decades without trial. Goh Chok Tong naively or deliberately thinks that the PAP were kind to them. It is their way of silencing their conscience.
Successive PAP leaders use the ISA against those who who tried in some ways to help the poor or unfortunate people to reclaim their rights and dignity. Many were not even political opponents. Victims of Operation Spectrum in 1987 represent the clearest example of how the PAP under its leader, Lee Kuan Yew and his successor, Goh Chok Tong continue to abuse their power by using the ISA to nip community leaders in the bud. They imagine that these leaders would one day enter politics and detain and torture them without trial.
Thursday, 21st May will be the 39th anniversary of Operation Spectrum. The survivors of Operation Spectrum and their friends will remember that on that day, 39 years ago, the ISA was suddenly used against 16 innocent people who never thought they would be the targets of the ruling PAP government.They were rudely woken up at dawn. Plain clothes police officers climbed over gates, banged hard on their doors demanding access to their homes. They ransacked everything including breaking down my door because they expected to find subversive documents and weapons. They found none. Despite that, all of them were detained and many subjected to sleep deprivation and ill treatment.
Part 2
On 21 May 1987, ISD officers refused my request to call the owner of the house to open a locked room. They karate kicked down my door with a loud shattering noise, disturbing all my neighbours that early dawn.
No subversive documents or weapons were found in the room or any of the homes of the 16 people who were arrested and detained that day. Upon my release a few months later, I asked the ISD to pay for the cost of the broken door. They paid.
Just about a month before 21 May 1987, First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was briefed by the ISD about a small group of Muslims who were alleged to be planning riots in Singapore to coincide with the anniversary of the political race riots that took place on May 13, 1969 in Malaysia. Goh explained in TALL ORDER, THE GOH CHOK TONG STORY, (pp 198-200) that at that time, he had to decide whether the group of four Muslims, apparently trained in martial arts should be arrested under the ISA. He asked ISD officers if there was any evidence of weapons for use in the planned riots. The officers assured him that there was none, but they were confident that a cache of weapons would be found. Goh gave the order to arrest.
On 24 April 1987, the group was arrested and detained. Five parangs, two keris and a sword were found in the home of one of those arrested.
As the men were not tried in open court, we do not know if the weapons were genuinely found in the home of one of those arrested. We do not know if the keris and sword were simply decorative pieces displayed on walls.
I don’t want to quibble about whether weapons were actually found in the home of one detainee. What I want to ask Mr Goh today is why he detained 16 people without demanding the production of evidence of weapons or subversive documents. Should he not immediately order the release of all 16 innocent people from detention and compensate them for wrongful arrests, false imprisonment and injuries suffered at the hands of ISD officers?
Part 3
In TALL ORDER THE GOH CHOK TONG STORY, Goh told his interviewers/author about the difficulties in making judgements based on intelligence. He affirmed the correctness of his and Lee Kuan Yew’s decision to arrest 16 alleged Marxists. At page 208 he said:
“Lee, my colleagues and I took the right decision. You will never know the full facts until later. They might be just do-gooders, but when you suspect them of engaging in questionable activities and being manipulated, you do not know where it would lead to. So, if you do not stop such activities and the problem worsens, it becomes too late. And the point we are making is that whatever mission you have, if it is above board, there is no problem. Take us on openly – that is not an issue. Your mission to help the foreign maids, to help the disposessed – that was entirely right. But do not do it in such a secretive, subversive way. The right thing to do was what Teo Soh Lung did years later – she stood for election in 2011.”
I don’t know if the interviewers/writer raised any questions on Goh’s conclusion that the so called “Marxists” were involved in secret subversive activities. I don’t know if they or Goh had read my book BEYOND THE BLUE GATE published eight years before their book was published or 1987 Singapore’s Marxist Conspiracy. Did they and Goh read PRIEST IN GEYLANG by Fr Guillaume Arotcarena, the founder of the Geylang Catholic Centre?
The Geylang Catholic Centre was an organisation set up with the blessings of the Catholic Church. It assisted foreign workers and provided after care for prisoners, regardless of race, language or religion. In carrying out his work, Fr Arotcarena communicated with the Ministry of Labour and the Immigration Department. How can Goh conclude that the Geylang Catholic Centre was involved in clandestine activities when Fr Arotcarena had openly dealt with these government ministries?
Vincent Cheng who initially worked as a full time staff at the centre later worked for the Justice and Peace Commission. The Commission is an official pastoral body of the Catholic Church dedicated to promoting human dignity, social justice, human rights, and peace. How did Goh reach the conclusion that the 16 arrested were involved in subversive activities when both these organisations were lawfully set up by the Catholic Church? So was the Young Christian Workers headed by the Late Fr Joseph Ho.
In my book, BEYOND THE BLUE GATE, I listed all my activities in the Law Society, Geylang Catholic Centre and the Workers’ Party in my Representation to the Advisory Board. Goh should know that I was questioned by Lee Kuan Yew in the Parliamentary Select Committee a few months before my arrest regarding my small contributions to the Workers’ Party. The Workers’ Party is a legal opposition party. How can participating in activities of the Workers’ Party be regarded as “questionable activities”?
Tall Order is not an autobiography. It is also not a biography or a collection of interviews. It is a mix of all three. I am disappointed that the writer and interviewers did not take the opportunity to ask Goh how he reached his conclusion that innocent citizens doing “good deeds” were involved in secretive subversive activities when the organisations they volunteered with were legal organisations set up by the Catholic Church.
I hope that Goh Chok Tong who now has plenty of free time will read the publications of Function 8.
Not long before my arrest on 21 May 1987, Tan Jing Quee* came to my office specifically to warn me to be careful. I told him: “Jing Quee everything I do is in the open. I have nothing to hide. Why should they arrest me?”
Jing Quee’s response was swift: “Everything we did was also in the open but they arrested us!” I was shocked. But soon I forgot his warning. Jing Quee was right. Everything we did was “above board”. Why were we arrested and imprisoned under the ISA?
Jing Quee is dead. Maybe I have a few more years to go. Give me a response Mr Goh before we end our journey on earth.
*Jing Quee, a lawyer, poet and historian was arrested in 1963 and 1977. He spent more than three years in prison without trial. He was tortured. He died in 2011.
Part 4
Not satisfied with wrecking the lives of 16 people and their families on 21 May 1987, another six people were arrested and detained on 20 June 1987. Two of the six were leaders of the Singapore Polytechnic Students Union. They had issued a press statement denying that the union was under the influence of two of the 16 detained.
How can the government arrest them for rebutting its false allegations? If that was not a blatant abuse of the ISA, then what is?
The third person arrested was a national serviceman. And the remaining three were friends of the 16. They spoke to journalists about the mass arrests. That was their only “crime”. And that was another blatant abuse of the ISA.
It was wicked of PAP leaders to arrest the six persons on the grounds that they were threats to national security. Like the 16, none of the six was found to be in possession of weapons or subversive documents. The arrests were carried out purely to instill fear in the people. “Kill the chicken to teach the monkey”.
When I was a young lawyer, G Raman, my employer told me that Lee Kuan Yew ruled by fear. I didn’t believe him. Years later, I realised that he was right. Singaporeans have internalised fear. It seemed natural for them to avoid speaking up against anything the government does. Or they will automatically look around if they want to say anything that may be slightly critical of the government.
We have lost our freedom of speech without even realising it. Years later, Lee himself admitted that he preferred to rule by fear. Machiavelli had inspired and guided him throughout his life. And he had successfully taught his successors that that was the only way to retain power.
In his interview, Goh Chok Tong claimed that he, Lee Kuan Yew and his son were “honest people in charge”. At page 213 of TALL ORDER THE GOH CHOK TONG STORY, Goh asked:
” … do you allow the fear to therefore do away with the ISA and have more fear after that? That you do not even know what happened, subversively – which is a greater fear? I know we have honest people in charge. Lee Kuan Yew, myself, Lee Hsien Loong. How did the arests in 1987 advance our political purposes? We lost ground in the 1988 general election because people who were unhappy thought we were wrong, that we were overreacting in hauling in some ‘innocent people’, ‘do-gooders’. But if we had abused the act, we would have been out.”
The PAP suffered a small drop of 1.2% of the overall votes from the previous election in 1984. What Goh omitted to say was that Francis Seow, my lawyer who was arrested under the ISA when he came to visit me at the Whitley Detention Centre for my habeas corpus proceedings won 49.1% of the votes in the Eunos GRC. He would have won had it not been for a last minute shift of PAP candidates. But that was part of the political game.
Goh and Lee were shocked at the wins of the Workers Party. They should have graciously accepted their losses and welcomed Francis Seow and Dr Lee Siew Choh as non- constituency members of parliament under their own scheme. But the Machiavelli in them refused to allow them to be gracious. They hounded Francis Seow out of Singapore and forced him to lose his country of birth and die in exile.
Goh consoled himself that the PAP was not voted out in 1988 because it did not abuse the ISA. I am amazed at his conclusion. At the same time, I am flattered that he had thought that the arrest and detention of 22 insignificant people could cost the PAP to lose power. After decades of living in fear, was it realistic for the people to vote the PAP out because of 22 people? The fear of a Machiavelli believer is beyond my imagination.
There is no limit to how vile a politician guided by the ghost of Machiavelli will go. This sad episode will forever be a stain on Singapore’s history and Lee’s final term in office.
Statutory declarations are statements signed by persons before an officer of the court. It should contain only truths but for people who have lost their freedom, they often contain untruths and half truths.
On 18 April 1988, nine former ISA prisoners released a joint statement denying participation in any Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the PAP government by using communist united front tactics. All hell broke loose the next day! Eight of the nine were rearrested and sent back to prison. The ninth, Tang Fong Har escaped arrest because she was in London. She has since then been living in exile.
Did the nine anticipate being rearrested after the release of their statement?
My late mother had time and again advised me after my first release from prison, to ignore the government’s taunts and unjust allegations. “Let others bully you. You don’t bully others!” But that sense of being unjustly accused for something that I did not do kept bugging me. I was constantly reminded that I was a fugitive in my own country!
In February 1988, I was asked if I would like to be interviewed by BBC about my time in detention. I agreed. Thus I was interviewed at my office and the programme called NEWSNIGHT, featuring the success story of Singapore was slightly damaged by my one second appearance narrating that I was hit by ISD officers when I was detained. I recall that my friends and I were terrified after the interview because we saw so many plainclothes officers outside the building trailing the BBC team!
Who instigated the drafting of the joint statement was one of the questions asked of many of those who had to sign statutory declarations. Senior officers accused me of being the instigator because I was interviewed by BBC and I was not rearrested! They said that others thought it was safe to make a joint statement because nothing happened to me! But how could I read the thoughts of my friends!
The first few days of my rearrest was relatively peaceful. They must have thought that it was pointless to interrogate me because I would have nothing to say since I told the officers that if they like, they can name me as the leader and the rest can go free. I told them I could solve the problem for them if they allowed me to see all my friends. Of course that was a naïve suggestion! They were utterly furious.
On the 9th day of my rearrest, the Deputy Director, the late Mr Sim Poh Heng stormed into the interrogation room. His face was as black as the opium gods in the Taoist temple. He said: “The rest have signed their statements and you are the last!” He went on: “I won’t ask you to say you were not beaten up!” I said that even if he did, I wouldn’t. So I didn’t state whether I was beaten up or not. Readers can therefore assume that I was beaten up.
It didn’t take too long for a statement to be drafted. In fairness to the Sim, I stated in the declaration that I was warned by him that if we released the statement, we would all be rearrested. One of the officers later told me that I was ungrateful to Mr Sim and that I had done him in for revealing that I was warned. Actually, it was not my intention to do Mr Sim in. He was basically a decent person and tried his best to save us from prison.
After being warned by Mr Sim, I consulted Chew Kheng Chuan who I happen to meet. Being an optimist, he said it was not too late to call a meeting with the others. I somehow knew that it was not possible to call off the release of the statement because some of the signatories had already despatched it out of Singapore!
And so the meeting that night was filled with tension. No one was willing to consider the consequences. Some were hostile and filled with bravado. “We are ready to be arrested!”
On 18 April 1988, copies of the joint statement were hand delivered to the foreign press and mailed to The Straits Times.
The next day, as I left my house for work, I noticed that I was being trailed. When I reached office, I received a call from AsiaWeek’s journalist, Lisa Beyer. I think I told her that we may be arrested. She said but you are not arrested now. I said “not yet”.
Soon after putting down the phone, plain clothes officers entered the premises. After a search which included their salvaging the contents of the waste paper basket into a trash bag, I was taken to my home for another search and then to Whitley.
All eight of us and our lawyer Patrick Seong were arrested that day. We subsequently signed statutory declarations. Many of the declarations contain falsehoods regarding ill treatment or said nothing about ill treatment. In addition, those not arrested were summoned to the ISD headquarters at Phoenix Park. They too signed statutory declarations, some of which also contain untruths. Altogether, 14 statutory declarations were signed and published in The Straits Times.
I don’t know how those who signed declarations which didn’t tell the truth feel. I remember that not long after everyone had signed the declaration, I was asked to see Tang Lay Lee. Mr Sim told me that Lay Lee was in a state of depression and I was asked to console her. How on earth could I console her when I was also in a state of depression! Anyway, I was escorted to a room where she was. There was a Bible on the table. Oh, while she was allowed a Bible, I was not offered one since my arrest! I was staring at walls throughout!
I cannot remember what I said to Lay Lee. I probably told her that what was done cannot be undone and there was no need to regret what has been done.
Reading Lay Lee’s statutory declaration today, I think I know why she was so depressed. She had stated that she was well treated and had no complaints against any ISD officers when in fact she suffered physical blows even more than me! The ISD officers were so afraid that she would lodge complaints against them that they made her confirm that she had no intention of lodging any complaint against them!
In the years following her release, she told friends that she was not only hit by both male and female officers for being a Catholic, she was also doused with cold water in freezing cold temperature when she was unwell and in a state of shock and confusion.
Nearly 40 years have passed since Operation Spectrum took place. Both the director and deputy director of ISD have passed on. Among the 22 who were arrested, two have passed on – Tay Hong Seng and Yap Hon Ngian William. Mr Francis Seow who took on my habeas corpus application and subsequently was arrested when he came to interview me, has also passed on.
Today, the PAP government does not wish to remind us of Operation Spectrum. I don’t know if PAP history mentions Operation Spectrum. Maybe one day, when there is a change of government, the archives of the ISD will be open for scrutiny for all of us. By that time, I will be dead!
It is a criminal offence for anyone to sign statements that are untrue before a commissioner for oaths. Are there instances where people are compelled to make false statements? The answer is “yes”.
When statements are declared by ISA detainees or former detainees before a commissioner for oaths, we should treat them with absolute scepticism. In fact, such statements should instantly be disbelieved and the person/s who ordered them to be made should be condemned. Ministers who thought that by extracting these statements and publicising them would justify their arrests and detention should be embarrassed.
On 21 May 1987, 16 people were arrested and detained without trial under the ISA. The following month, on 20 June 1987, another six persons were arrested and detained. They were alleged to have acted in a “manner prejudicial to the security of Singapore” using “communist united front tactics”. This alleged security operation was codenamed “Operation Spectrum.”
In the course of the year, the detainees were released in “trainloads” except for Vincent Cheng Kim Chuan who continued to be imprisoned till June 1990.
The government did not make life easy for those released. Some lost their jobs while others had difficulty returning to their professions. Added to all these problems, the government repeatedly referred to them as Marxist conspirators. Angry and unhappy over all those allegations, nine former detainees decided to issue a joint statement denying the government’s allegations against them and confirming ill treatment while in detention.
On 18 April 1988, the joint statement was released. The following day, eight of those who signed the statement were rearrested. The ninth (Tang Fong Har) was in the United Kingdom and did not return to Singapore. She became another political exile from this rich island state. In addition to the eight rearrested, their lawyer, Patrick Seong Kwok Kei was also arrested. His “crime” was for passing information to the foreign press.
In reading these statutory declarations, the reader must bear in mind that nine of those who made the declarations were in prison. Detention under the ISA is indefinite. Under such circumstances, several of them who were physically assaulted did not deny or state the occurrence of such assaults. They may thus be assumed to have suffered physical assaults. There were also detainees who were in fact beaten up but were somehow coerced or persuaded to state that they were not physically tortured and were well treated.
For those who did not sign the joint statement, we can assume that they too feared being rearrested. In the case of Chew Kheng Chuan who helped draft the joint statement but was not arrested till a few days later, he was compelled to declare that he was not physically assaulted even though he was. Years later, he publicly confirmed in the film “1987 – Untracing the Conspiracy” directed by Jason Soo that he was severely beaten up while in detention. Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBJqJroWt3E.
Updated 5 Oct 2025: adding Chong Ming Kee 钟纪光. Arrested Aug 1966 and released Aug 1980. (No. 699 on the list)
The People’s Action Party (PAP) came into power in 1959 and is still in power today. The Internal Security Act (ISA) which allows the government to arrest and imprison people without trial is frequently used against members of the opposition parties as well as nipping dissent in the bud. The predecessors to this law are the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 and the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955. Thousands have been imprisoned without trial but no one except the Internal Security Department knows the exact number of prisoners.
In 2014, a list of 1190 names of detainees was compiled and published by Loh Miao Gong (Loh Miao Ping) in the book The Operation Coldstore in Singapore, Commemorating 50 Years edited by Poh Soo Kai, Tan Kok Fang and Hong Lysa. We have updated this list which now contains 1428 names. Please see list of detainees in PDF format
clicking on photo will bring you to the list too
From 2001, the ISA was mainly used against Muslims. This was just prior to and soon after the destruction of the Twin Towers, New York. Suspicion fell on Al-Qaeda as the attackers. 2,996 (including the 19 hijackers of the planes) lost their lives. Three of them are likely to be still in prison today.
From 2015, the ISA was used against migrant workers from Bangladesh. Many were detained for about 30 days (the period allowed under the law for investigation) and deported to their homeland. From 2016, several of those detained were charged and convicted under the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (TSFA), 2002 for remitting small sums of money to organisations, alleged to be terrorist groups, in their home country. They were repatriated after prison sentences were completed.
From 2019, female Indonesian domestic workers were arrested under the ISA for remitting small sums of money to alleged terrorist organisations in Indonesia. Several were subsequently charged under the TSOFA and deported after serving prison sentences.
From 2015, many detainees were gazetted as terrorists under Schedule A of TSOFA prior to their release.
In 1995, Singapore acceded to the Treaty on the Rights of the Child. With effect from 1 July 2020, a “child” is defined as a person below the age of 18. Despite acceptance of the Treaty, young people below the age of 18 are not spared under the ISA. Between 2020 and February 2025, nine youths ranging from below the age of 18 to as young as 14 were arrested and detained under the ISA. Two 18 year olds who were arrested in December 2022 and November 2024 are still in detention today.
In recent times, the Singapore government claims that youths have been influenced by far right ideologies. In 2020, a 16 year old Indian boy of the Protestant faith was alleged to have plans to attack Muslims at a mosque. In 2024 an 18 year old who possessed t-shirts with neo-Nazi and white supremacist symbols as well as a tottoo of an incomplete sonnenrad, a symbol used by Brenton Tarrant who attacked Muslims in two mosques in Christchurch in 2019 was arrested His friend or acquaintance, a 17 year old was detained in 2025. Both are still in prison without trial.
Notes (updated on 15 May 2024)
The number of detainees in the list is not conclusive. Only the ISD can provide the actual number.
The Singapore government does not consider those who were arrested and detained for less than 30 days as detainees. Detainees were occasionally released within 30 days and re-detained. Some detainees have been detained in this manner for 60 and 90 days. No detention orders were issued. Some of the names in the list do not set out the release dates. They may be released but we do not have information.
In 2011 Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean revealed in parliament that from 1959 to 1990, a total of 2,460 arrests were made under the ISA. Of those arrests, 1,045 were detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and the ISA. Thus the present list of 1,425 does not represent the actual number of victims of the ISA.
There are about 17 detainees as of 15 May 2025.
The government should issue a full list of detainees.
Minister K Shanmugam was met by reporters at the doorstep of Masjid Maarof a few days ago when he disclosed that a 15 year old girl was served with a Restriction Order in February 2025 for allegedly supporting and pledging allegiance to ISIS through a chatbot and a 17 year old boy was served with a Detention Order in March 2025 for “far right extremist” thoughts. The boy was allegedly a contact of Nick Lee Xing Qiu who has been in detention since November 2024.
The minister did not reveal when these two young people were arrested. Since the ISA allows a person to be arrested and detained for 30 days without having to be produced in court or served with a detention order, it is likely that the girl was arrested and detained in January 2025 for about 30 days and the boy in February 2025.
What do I make of the minister’s disclosure of the latest young victims of the ISA? Several online commentators speculated that the intention of the minister was to distract the attention of Singaporeans from the embarrassing problem created by former NMP Calvin Cheng who on his Facebook, promised to buy pro Palestinian activists business class air tickets to Gaza and shoes provided they do not return to Singapore. There was also the mysterious act of Minister Vivian Balakrishnan who apparently “liked” Cheng’s post but later retracted, claiming that he was not responsible for the “like”.
I leave aside all these speculations. For now, I want to say that Minister Shanmugam’s revelation of the two young victims of the ISA at the doorstep of a mosque is shocking and is a veiled threat to all of us. Arresting and detaining a person under the ISA is a very serious matter. Why did he make the announcement so informally and at the doorstep of a mosque? Why didn’t he issue a press statement as was his ministry’s practice? Will this be his new practice for announcing arrests and detentions under the ISA?
Reading the transcript of his interview, I draw the conclusion that the minister is proud of the fact that he possesses the power to arrest and detain any person without having to show evidence of the alleged threat such a person pose to Singapore or Singaporeans. He said:
“… Thanks to the framework of laws we have in the Internal Security Act and the way we take a zero tolerance approach. For us, WE DON’T WAIT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY ARE ABOUT TO DO SOMETHING – YOU ARE THINKING OF, DOING SOMETHING YOU ARE PLANNING, WE THINK THAT YOU HAVE REACHED THE STAGE OF, YOU KNOW, GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, WE MOVE IN. (Emphasis in uppercase mine). We have a variety of orders, restriction orders – so you are not detained, detention orders where it is more serious and you need to be taken in.
… ISD tries its best to keep track of people with these sorts of thoughts. But the large, very significant way, Singapore is largely a peaceful place between races, between religions. Harmony, we emphasise that. We are integrated in the way we live, in the way we go to schools, in the way we work. We have to make sure that we keep it going. The beautiful thing about Singapore is that you can go about your lives peacefully. That is the essence of your question. So, we have to try and preserve that way of life.”
Can the minister and the ISD read the minds of each and everyone of us? Are they super psychiatrists and psychologists who can never be wrong in their assessment? He claims: “The beautiful thing about Singapore is that you can go about your lives peacefully.”
My question is who is the “you” in this statement? The “you” does not refer to the young victims or their families. They are in big trouble. Their families are in turmoil. While they are unable to proclaim their innocence because they have been restricted or detained indefinitely, the minister and his people can enjoy their lives as if nothing has happened. It is clear to me that the “you” does not refer to you or me. It refers to them, the PAP. We are all subjected to their expertise in mind-reading.
Must all Singaporeans live in fear of being arrested and detained under the ISA for thoughts of overthrowing the PAP even if such an event happen through the ballot box? If this is what the minister wants to tell us, it is better that we give our votes to the opposition so that he can be humbled and stop misusing his massive power.
