Priest in Geylang: Story of Michael and Catherine

If you have not read Part I of the review of Priest in Geylang written by Father Guillaume Arotcarena, click here.

There is this interesting story in the book which kinda indicates the Marxist/historical materialism analysis approach taken by Father Arotcarena. Catherine, the wife of Michael, is of bourgeois background and so when her necklace was stolen by her domestic helper (proletariat), Catherine who was well-off, was quite capable of replacing it, and hence did not "arouse much compassion" from the priest. Although Father Guillaume Arotcarena was quite right to ask Catherine to make a room for her helper, I can't help but to see that the Father was unnecessary bias in his writings against Catherine, who happens to be well-off. This coming from a priest who quoted Antonio Gramsci at the end of his introductory chapter.

If you are wondering who is Michael, the high-ranking magistrate, it would not be hard to guess. He was among the first batch of lawyers to be appointed the rank of senior counsel in 1997 along with Davinder Singh and VK Rajah and his brother was once arrested by the ISD .

I will leave you with this short story of Catherine and Vilma from the book. 

 

EXCERPT OF PRIEST IN GEYLANG PG 85-87: -

Sometimes I had to get involved in things I would rather keep way from. One day I had a visit from Catherine. I knew her and her family. I knew her husband, Michael, very well, a high-ranking magistrate in the judiciary. They were devout Catholics, about 40 years of age.

Both of them came from a bourgeois background, and they employed a young Filipina even though they have no real need for her; they were childless, lived in a very nice flat downtown which was easy to upkeep. But because they were amahs (servants) in the house in their childhood, it seemed to them that they should similarly have one now to maintain their standing and also relieve Catherine from any domestic chores. Yet Catherine did not work and would have had plenty of time to do the housework.

Anyway, this is how Vilma arrived in their home. She was in her 20s, resourceful but a little scatterbrained. In brief, she was what could be expected of someone her age. I saw her fairly often at the Geylang Centre when she had her day of rest. She would come to chat with the other girls there.

Catherine told me that she lost a gold chain which she was particularly fond of. It was given to her by her husband. Until this point, her story did not arouse much compassion from me because she had the means to replace the necklace with another one which she would like just as much. But she suspected that Vilma had stolen it and I must admit on the face of it, it looked like she was probably right. She was ready to forgive Vilma if the chain was returned to her. Otherwise she would cancel her contract and send her back to the Philippines. What puzzled her was that she had gone through all of Vilma's belongings in her presence and searched the flat thoroughly as well but the gold chain was nowhere to be found. She asked me if I could help.

In the end, I offered to talk to Vilma the next day at her home on the condition that she would not be there herself. She accepted. I went at the arranged time. Vilma opened the door, a bit surprised to see me and told me her boss was not in. I told her it was just as well because I wanted to talk to her, Vilma. I told her without beating around the bush that she had better give me the chain she had taken so that I could return it to her boss or else her contract would be cancelled and she would have to go back to the Philippines. Her parents and her younger siblings relied on her salary for their living. I promised the matter would rest there and she would suffer no consequences if she returned the object.

It did not take her long to admit to the theft and she went to the window in the sitting-room where there was an evergreen potted plant. She dug into the pot, extracted the precious chain and gave it to me. In fact she did not know how to get out of the situation without losing face and regretted having given in to the impulse to hide the chain away. She had hoped her boss would quickly forget about the chain because she had so many other pieces of jewellery. I reiterated my promise and told her not to worry.

That night Catherine came to the Geylang Centre and I returned the gold chain to her. She wanted to know how I found it but I never told her. I brought to her attention that there were two bedrooms in her flat and that I did not understand why Vilma had to sleep in the kitchen. She could free the second bedroom so that Vilma would have a place for herself and enjoy some privacy. She told me that this was how amahs lived when she was a child! Which shows that silliness is equally distributed in all social classes. But she promised that she would follow my advice.

This is how I gained a largely overrated reputation as a Sherlock Holmes among her relatives to whom she was quick to recount the story with embellishments of her own. All in all, the episode ended quite well and the relationship between Vilma and Catherine improved markedly.

Will the real exiles please stand up?

Who is an exile? What is an exile? Is an exile someone who cannot return to his/her country because he/she will face injustice? Is an exile someone who doesn't want to return because he/she does not want to answer charges levied against him/her? Is an exile someone who has completely no trust in the system and no faith that Singaporeans will stand up for him/her, if the cause is just? Is an exile someone who feels that freedom in a foreign land is better than being jailed at home? 

Then why do some stay and fight in Singapore even though they face many instances of unfairness and injustices? People like JBJ, Chiam See Tong and even Chee Soon Juan. They stayed and they fought the good fight. They brought democracy to our lands and they lend us a voice when we were deaf. 

**********

Let us look at the the circumstances of these three individuals featured in recently banned film To Singapore With Love. [And YES, Government was being dumb when they banned the film because it will only create more publicity. Perhaps they banned it out of their own stubbornness (and stupidity) to honour the fight against the Communists, but they have clearly miscalculated the political climate and the power of the internet.] 

HO JUAN THAI

HO made what were considered "Chinese Chauvinistic" speeches as a candidate for Bt Panjang during the 1976 General Elections. He was accused of working up racial tensions by accusing the PAP of "wiping out", "destruction" and "killing" Chinese language at the expense of promoting English language. 

When Ho was wanted by the Police for questioning regarding his inflammatory speeches, he decided to abscond to Malaysia and later London with the help of Tan Chay Wa. TCW was a Communist cadre who was later sentenced to death in Malaysia for possession of firearm. Tan Wah Piow, another exile featured in the film, also campaigned for Tan Chay Wa to be spared the gallows. 

Ho also publicly declared that he forged his passport to enter UK in July 1977 when his passport supposedly expired in Dec 1976. 

Ho had repeatedly claim that the Singapore authorities would not issue him a passport and that he would be detained unfairly if he returned to Singapore. The authorities repeatedly assert that they cannot give Ho a passport because he is being investigated for passport forgery but they will grant him one time pass to enter Singapore. They claim that he is wanted for questioning because of the inflammatory speeches that he made during the 1976 General Elections. 

Going by past cases faced by JBJ, Tang Liang Hong and Chee Soon Juan, Ho was most likely wanted for sedition or libel, and running away on a forged passport obviously didn't solve the problem. Clearly, Ho should answer some of these questions raised. If allowed to come back without any conditions, then any criminal who had escaped Singapore would be asking for the same thing. 

Excerpts of HJT's speeches

 

TAN WAH PIOW

This blog has written several posts about this leading leftist leader. You can read them here, here, here, here and here.

Briefly, TWP first hit the headlines in 1975 when he was jailed for a year for rioting at the Pioneer Industries Employee Union. TWP claimed that he was not present at the scene, but the state called upon various witnesses who thought otherwise. After serving his jail term, TWP was due to be enlisted for NS, but he decided to escape to Malaysia illegally and then to London subsequently. His reason for not serving? TWP said that he feared for his personal safety and he could be assassinated should he enlist. Then the natural question would be - wasn't being imprisoned just as dangerous?

One did not join the Communist club like they do the Tanah Merah Country Club today. Communists in the 60s and 70s did not carry a card to say that they were members. The state has always argued that TWP was a communist and he's being wanted by the ISD for questioning. I guess they can only prove this by communications intercepts and by association. The same could apply for persons detained under ISA today for violent political Islam. 

Associations were what TWP had. After serving his jail term, TWP was said to have skipped town with the help of communist operatives. 3 of those who helped him eventually joined the Communist Party of Malaya. TWP hid in Malaysia for a month before forging his exit permit, moving to Thailand, Amsterdam and finally settled in London. In London, he was aided by Malcolm Caldwell, another well-known British communist who died in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. 

In June 1974, when 30 members of the Malaysian National Liberation Front, a CPM proxy, were arrested, TWP led the protests asking for their release. In 1982, when CPM cadre Tan Chay Wa was being sent to the gallows, TWP campaigned for his case in London. In fact, many of TWP's close comrades, such as Juliet Chin and Chia Yong Tai, during the 70s eventually joined the violent armed communist struggle.  

When the communist threat was over and defeat was apparent, five of TWP's communist colleagues, who were also his comrades during his days as student activist, managed to gain asylum in Europe with his help. 

Now, if you were Tan Wah Piow, having escaped NS and helped a whole bunch of communists, would you return to Singapore? 

ANG SWEE CHAI

This is actually the saddest case of the three presented here because Ang Swee Chai was never wanted by the authorities for any outstanding charges and she left the country legally to join her husband, Francis Khoo, in London. She was interrogated for 72 hours by the ISD, where she claim she was mistreated, and released without charges. That is to say, she choose not to return home and stayed with her husband who escaped Singapore while he was being investigated for being part of the Euro-Communists in early 1970s.

What makes this case even more poignant is that Ho Kwon Ping, who was investigated together with Francis Khoo, served a relatively short stint under the ISA, and went on to be the Chairman of Banyan Tree and the President of SMU.  

In fact, ASC did return to Singapore in 2011, to lay her husband's ashes to rest. When ASC returned, she was not harassed by the authorities but neither did she stay. She even spoke at the National University of Singapore Health Auditorium. So it's really interesting to see her yearn for home in the film, To Singapore With Love, yet knowing that she could easily make Singapore her home again in 2011. Or maybe it was simply more attractive to frame a dutiful wife as a political exile?

So these are some of the men of and women featured in the documentary film, To Singapore WIth Love. Are they exiled by choice or because they were choice-less? The jury is out. Will the real exiles please stand up. 

Note: All screen grabs are from NLB archives of old ST. 

Screen grab from Singapore Rebel blog

Screen grab from That We May Dream Again FB page, started by those arrested under Ops Spectrum.