Category: ISA

  • Reading Statutory Declarations Of ISA Detainees

    by Teo Soh Lung

    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!

  • Statutory Declarations Of Victims Of The Internal Security Act (ISA)

    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.

    SDs of Patrick Seong (redacted)Download
    SDs of 8 (redacted)Download
    SDs of 5 (redacted)Download

    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. 

  • Can Idealism Disappear With Age?

    by Teo Soh Lung

    It was interesting to hear and read Minister K Shanmugam’s speech at the launch of his book, Policy, Fairness and Compassion and reported interviews he gave to the press. (ST: My views on laws such as detention without trial have evolved: K. Shanmugam at his book launch).

    I was particularly intrigued by the candid revelation of his idealism when he was a fresh member of parliament and later, his hardened attitude towards indefinite detention without trial and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. The Straits Times reported:

    “As a fresh-faced MP elected to the Chong Pang seat of Sembawang GRC in 1988, the 29-year-old private sector lawyer had said that laws such as the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA), the Internal Security Act and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) “(nagged) our conscience”.

    But as a minister, he has tightened the MRHA, and increased its penalties. He has also gone back to Parliament once every five years to seek the extension of the CLTPA.”

    He went on:

    “It’s an old adage – in your 20s, if you’re not idealistic, you don’t have a heart. In your 40s, if you’re still idealistic, you don’t have a head. I mean, you should have both,” he quipped.”

    I wonder if he was ever idealistic? Can idealism disappear so swiftly as one ages and become one of the most powerful minister in government? Contrast what he said as a minister with what Dr Lim Hock Siew said at the age of 78 when The Fajar Generation was launched. He had spent 20 years in prison, without trial under the the PAP government. Dr Lim said:

    “Now some of you may have heard that when you are young you are idealistic, when you’re old, you are realistic. Now this is the kind of rubbish that is used by those who have either lost their ideals or have sold their ideals for self-interest. Age should not wither one’s ideals or convictions.

    If anything, it should only consolidate and make it more resolute. If age has anything to do with it, it is only by way of expression and application of these ideals and convictions, having the benefit of a youthful experience. And a life without convictions, without idealism, is a mere meaningless existence, and I’m sure most of you will agree that as human beings, we are worthy of a life much more meaningful than just that.” (Remembering Dr Lim Hock Siew OUR FREEDOM FIGHTER p. 37).

    Detention without trial nagged at the conscience of the member of parliament when he was 29. But when he became a minister, he tightened these unjust laws and increased the penalties. Did he lose his youthful idealism or did he trade it for self-interest.? Was he following the precedent of Lee Kuan Yew who spoke passionately against detention without trial but swiftly amended all laws to the detriment of the people when he came to power?

    (Readers can download for free the booklet below at our blog.)

    Three Memorial Books – Free Download

  • People detained without trial in Singapore from 1950 – 2025
    (List of Detainees)

    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)

    1. The number of detainees in the list is not conclusive. Only the ISD can provide the actual number.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. There are about 17 detainees as of 15 May 2025.

    The government should issue a full list of detainees.

  • Arresting Teenagers Under The ISA

    Teo Soh Lung

    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.

  • T-Shirts And Tattoo

    by Teo Soh Lung

    On 10 February 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a press release informing the public that three people were arrested in October, November and December last year and subsequently deported, released on restrictions or detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA). For several months, besides their families, the public was not aware of these arrests. If indeed the government takes a “Zero-tolerance stance on support for terrorism and importance of early reporting”, why did it take several months to announce their arrests? The urgency of such “threats” is lost when reporting is delayed and when those arrested were released or deported.

    The three people arrested were Saharuddin bin Saari (34 years old), Nick Lee Xing Qiu 18 and Hamizah binte Hamzah (56 years old).

    Saharuddin being a Malaysian, was reported to have been handed over to the Malaysian police after one month of detention.

    While Lee was issued with a detention order, Hamizah was released on a restriction order.

    NICK LEE XING QIU

    Does Lee deserve to be indefinitely detained?

    The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said that Lee is the third young person who was attracted by far right ideology. The other two who were 16 year olds, were released after one month of detention.

    What were the evidence against Lee that warrants a detention order? Was it because he is 18 or because he was found to have a tattoo and three t-shirts with alleged symbols of the far right?

    MHA’s statement contradicts itself when it claims that Lee viewed himself as a East Asian supremacist rather than a white supremacist. While alleging that he idolised Brenton Tarrant who singlehandedly killed and injured many Muslims in Christchurch, the ministry did not produce any evidence that Lee would carry out such atrocities in Singapore. Indeed, as in past cases, it admitted that:

    “Lee’s family members, teachers and schoolmates were unaware of his radicalisation, and there is no indication that he tried to influence them with his violent extremist views. At the point of his arrest, Lee’s attack ideations were aspirational and he had no timeline to carry them out. Investigations into Lee’s online contacts have not surfaced any imminent threat to Singapore.”

    I am not convinced that a tattoo which did not resemble fully a sonnenrad as the black centre is absent and three t-shirts, one of which has a TOTENKOPF constitute sufficient evidence to warrant the severe punishment of ARREST and INDEFINITE DETENTION under the ISA. How many of us had t shirts of Totenkopf and portraits of revolutionary leaders like Che Guevara and Nelson Mandela when we were young? During my undergrad days, Che Guevara was very popular.

    Has our education system collapsed to such a degree that schools are no longer capable to guiding a young person to the “right path”? Is the MHA making use of Lee to warn young people that surfing the net and watching so called far right videos is forbidden and may lead to arrest and indefinite detention under the ISA? Lee’s case is not even one of having to “nip in the bud” that the PAP likes to practise because he is a so called “lone wolf”.

    HAMIZAH BINTE HAMZAH

    The ministry alleged that Hamizah was “radicalised” because of HAMAS’s 7 October 2023 attacks against Israel. What is the meaning of being radicalised?

    It is alleged that she was active online and followed development of the Israel-Hamas conflict closely, opening many online accounts to replace posts and accounts that were removed.

    I think many of us who have a conscience have followed the terrible genocide online. We have given up mainstream media including BBC and CNN. Many of us followed posts from Gaza and Al Jazeera closely. Sharing of violent posts inevitably resulted in algorithms removing some of our posts. I have had such experience and occasionally, not being satisfied that a repost or remark was evil, I had appealed with positive results. I did not open several accounts like Hamizah but the fact remains that I have seen, commented and sympathised with Palestinians. And my sympathies with them have been open, including writing to the Israeli Embassy.

    Does pro Hamas posts and anti IDF comments equate to my being incline to taking up arms and joining them? I think most of us know that the days of James Puthucheary joining the Indian Nationalists and Chinese helping to construct the Yunnan road are over!

    Like Lee and so many others, the ministry itself concluded that “Hamizah had no attack plans nor intentions to engage in armed violence locally or overseas. … Hamizah’s family members were unaware of her radicalisation. She intentionally tried to keep her extremist views from them, for fear of censure.”

    As a former victim of the ISA, I am aware that press releases are one sided statements. The detainees do not know what is said about them. When they are released, the relief that they are no longer in indefinite detention is so great that they don’t even read such press releases. And if they read them, they know that any response may result in their re-detention as had happened to me and my friends in 1988.

    It is high time the Singapore government truly respect the rule of law. This colonial law made much worse by the PAP should be repealed immediately. Singaporeans deserve to be treated fairly. Should they be accused of wrong doings, free and open trial should be available to them and not clandestine hearings before the advisory board. Executive detention is not the way a civilised and prosperous country like Singapore should continue to practise after 60 years of independence.

    Photos from MHA’s press release.