From London to Bangkok: A Comrade Remembers

Seeing Chin Peng's portly self in his later years, few would believe that this was the man who once waged a bloody Communist insurgency in the Malaysian peninsula. For years, he fought with his brothers-in-arms but was finally forced into exile in Thailand. Others who fought alongside him, both physically and ideologically, were similarly forced to flee into exile around the world. In recent years, Chin Peng fought to return to Malaysia and was denied entry every single time. Such is the fate of a man who was at the losing end of history. Maybe it is in his honour that even his ashes wrecked such apprehension in the BN government that they were denied entry for the fear of reopening old wounds.

Now in his death, with his former comrades scattered all over, tributes began to trickle in for a man they once revered and struggled alongside with. From distant London, a flower wreath sent by Tan Wah Piow, rekindled a long forgotten connection. In this dog eat dog capitalistic world that we live in now, such loyalty and sentimentality is a breath of fresh air. Self-exiled in the UK, constantly fighting for his innocence against the Singapore government's charge of being the mastermind behind the Marxist Conspiracy, he once stated vehemently in his book Let the People Judge that he was no communist.

"How could there ever be such a plot to establish a communist state when the so-called "mastermind", that is, my humble self, confessed in no uncertain terms that I oppose the very idea of turning Singapore into a communist state? Why does the Singapore goverment insist on calling me a communist when I am not one?" Tan Wah Piow in his book Let the People Judge

In the same vein, Wah Piow's sentimental self was already evident in 1982, when despite his own trying circumstances, he was instrumental in securing political asylum for another five members of Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) in Europe. Be it Communist or Nationalist or Socialist, the display of camaraderie that neither time nor distance can hope to extinguish is indeed worthy of a mention.  

(Source: http://news.sinchew.com.my/node/324537?tid=1)

Rough Translation:


"Former Singapore student movement activist Tan Wah Piow, who went into exile in the United Kingdom in 1976 and had a close relationship with former Communist leader Chin Peng, sent a wreath to the latter's wake today. From self-exile, he instigated a movement to abolish the Internal Security Act (ISA) in Malaysia and Singapore and asked for the release of Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) members.

Tan was a student at the University of Singapore in the 1970s and became the president of the student's union in 1974. In the same year, he was charged by the Singapore Government for organising and taking part in an illegal gathering and sentences to a one year jail term.

Information revealed that Tan was influenced by Marxism when young and therefore became passionate about student movements.

Based on online information, after his release from jail in 1976, Tan flew to UK on a Singapore passport with forged renewal endorsements to seek political asylum and stayed there till today.

In the UK, he continued to lobby for the abolishment of the ISA and release of CPM members.

Although Tan fled Singapore in mid 1970s, the Singapore Government named him as the mastermind of the Marxist Conspiracy in 1987."



Side Note: Ms Teo Soh Lung, one of those arrested during the Marxist Conspiracy, shared her views on Chin Peng's passing.

Ms Teo: "it is not right to say that the MCP wanted to establish a communist Malaya. They were prevented from joining the political process after the war even though its members fought against the Japanese when the British fled".

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the MCP did try to participate in the political process but they were repeatedly outwitted by the English-educated neo-colonialists, namely LKY and his comrades. The MCP did participate in the political process, first through Lim Chin Siong when he shared the leadership of PAP with LKY, and later through Barisan Socialis when they participated in the 1963 General Elections; but sadly chose to boycott parliament thereby depriving Singaporeans of an alternative to which we still seek today. Hence, MCP members had two major forays into the political arena and both ended in disappointment.


I shall end this post with a quote by German scholar Martin Luther:

Every man must do two things alone; he must do his own believing and his own dying.

Subhas Anandan on Law Society Presidents after Francis Seow

This is part two of prominent lawyer Subhas Anadan writing about his experiences with Law Society's presidents. The first part about self-exiled lawyer and former solicitor general, Francis Seow, can be found here.  

******************

After Francis Seow stepped down, Giam Chin Toon took over. He had lost to Francis Seow the previous year. Giam was a very unassuming person and not very eloquent or demanding. But he had the knack of getting the right people to do the right things and he would get the job done. In that sense, he was an effective leader. Of course, he paled in comparison with Francis Seow, who was flamboyant and outgoing. Giam was the opposite. He was quiet and was not interested in publicity. He just wanted to be left alone to do his work.



I still remember the time when Giam met with an accident during his tenure. He was driving his Porsche when he knocked down a cyclist against the flow of traffic. The cyclist, an old man, was riding up a slope and Giam couldn’t see him in time to avoid him. The cyclist died. Giam was badly shaken up but he still attended the council meeting and was re-elected president of the Law Society for a second year. I recall the man’s family was threatening him. In fact during the coroner’s inquiry, word went around that the family was going to create a scene and possibly harm Giam. I was asked by some council members to show support for him in court and I roped in some lawyers to join me. We hung around there to make sure that nothing happened to Giam. He was a friend and our President. We felt that it was our duty to ensure that nothing happened to him. Finally the matter was settled. Giam was not charged because he was simply not responsible for the accident.

Giam Chin Toon

After his term was over, Chelvarajah, who was his vice-president took over as president of the Law Society. Chelva is remembered for his courage in speaking out over Chief Justice Yong Pung How’s demands to get things done quickly. The Chief Justice wanted backlogs cleared quickly. He did not want justice to be delayed, all the time emphasising that justice delayed is justice denied. He was always rushing everyone. He wanted the law to be swift but in his enthusiasm, he did not take into consideration the practical problems lawyers faced, for instance, when bringing in foreign witnesses in time for trials. No quarters were given. The registrar was given instructions to issue early dates and to clear the cases quickly. If people could not accept the dates given, the registrar was told to strike off the court action. It was getting to be a very serious problem.



At an annual dinner held during his term as president between 1990 and 1992, where the Guest of Honour was then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, Chelva made his speech. He took a dig at the Chief Justice, who was present at the dinner, when he said: “When we talk about justice delayed being justice denied, we must also remember that justice hurried is justice buried.” There was practically a standing ovation for him because he had put it so aptly at the appropriate time. I think it took a lot of guts for the Law Society president to stand up and say that. Though enthusiastically received, his speech did not have any effect on the judicial administration. Cases were still being rushed but I felt Chelva made his point that evening.

Chelvarajah

After Chelva, we had Peter Low as president for two years. He was a very insipid president, not noted for anything good or bad. He did not make any changes and there was no effect on the Law Society or on the layers. He just plodded along. How he managed to remain president for two years, no one knows. That’s all I can say about him. After Peter Low, came another friend of mine, Chandra Mohan. He used to clash with Chief Justice Yong on policies, the Legal Profession Act and many other matters. He was quite bold and spoke his mind. The next president was the late R Palakrishnan. During his three-year tenure, there wasn’t much dispute between him and the judiciary. In fact, we called him a ”yes” man because practically everything the Chief Justice wanted, he gave. I suppose that was the best way out. There was no point fighting if you were not going to win anyway. You might as well give in gracefully and reap the ensuing rewards.

Peter Low

The late Pala Krishnan

Arfat Selvam took over from Palakrishnan. She was a disaster. She did not read the minds of the lawyers. There was an attempt to pass a vote of no-confidence against her and her council by the general body of lawyers. I think it’s the first time in the history of the Law Society that such a motion was tabled. After two hours of serious debate, my good friend, Lee Tow Kiat, wisely suggested that the meeting be adjourned. That motion was carried and the meeting was reconvened again. After the incident, I think she decided that she had enough after being president for one year. She stood down. She blamed me amongst others for making her life as president miserable and blamed us for all the problems she had. In some ways what she said was true.

Arfat Selvam

We also had Philip Jeyaretnam, another effective president. During his time, we set up the Association of Criminal Layers of Singapore. He misunderstood the motive behind its formation and clashed with us. We hit back at him. There were some antagonistic exchanges between the both of us. Finally, during his last few months as president, we met for lunch and managed to resolve our differences. We realised that it was all a case of miscommunication. After Jeyaretnam, we had Michael Hwang, who is the current president. To me, he seems to be doing well and making the right moves, but others say “a new broom sweeps clean”. We’ll have to wait and see how his tenure progresses.





I am not in a position to say much about other Law Society presidents. I know Harry Elias very well. He was president before Francis Seow. I worked with Harry in some of his sub-committees. I know T P B Menon who was president for four years. He managed to run the Law Society with a small secretariat. People like him did not have the luxury of the type of secretariat the current president has.

Subhas Anandan: The best I could-Chapter 27-On Francis Seow

This is an excerpt from the autobiography of prominent lawyer Subhas Anandan who wrote of his experience with Francis Seow, the self-exiled former Solicitor-General and politician, who is now living in the United States. In Subhas words, he described Seow as someone who is fuelled by deep-seated motives but did not have what it took to be a leader. Seow still owes Subhas $25K, a huge sum of money in the 1980s. Teo Soh Lung, on the other hand, was said to have strong principles and believed in fair play.

Subhas Anandan: Francis Seow and The President of The Law Society


I consider the Law Society Council’s decision not to adduce evidence against me when the complainant was none other than the Attorney-General to be a very courageous act. The Law Society stood by a member to ensure that he was not bullied. I look upon this as its finest moment. I believe the reason the Law Society Council took that stand was partly due to the calibre of its members, with the likes of Teo Soh Lung, a lawyer who was later detained for what she believed in as a member of the council. There were many others like her who had very strong principles, who believed in fair play and that no one should be bullied.


The other time the Law Society stood out, when lawyers walked with pride, was when Francis Seow was its president. It would subsequently be proven through that many of his actions were fuelled by deep-seated motives or what one would consider as personal desires. Whatever his motives may have been, the way he conducted himself as president and the speeches he made had lawyers walking with their heads held up high. We had the feeling that we would not be trampled upon. We had a leader who would stand by us. Little did we know that the same leader would someday pack up his things and slink away from Singapore leaving behind a lot of disillusioned people who believed in him. There were also those who gave him money. He still owes me $25,000. I suppose if should say goodbye to it. Most of all, there were many who thought that he would open up a new chapter in Singapore politics.

But he was a disappointment and a disaster. He didn’t have the moral courage to return to Singapore to face income tax charges even if he was convicted of those charges, it would have only amounted to a fine but he was not prepared to take the risk. In the final analysis, he was after all, nothing. A man who spoke well – his eloquence was often very charming – but other than that he did not have what it took to be a leader. He was not prepared to go through the test of fire which all politicians must face. Whatever you may say about Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee and the other first-generation PAP leaders, they all went through their “baptism of fire” and came out stronger. It is a pity that Francis Seow was not made of sterner stuff.


Francis Seow was the reason behind the 1986 amendment to the Legal Profession Act. Section 38(1) was introduced to prevent the Law Society from commenting on any legislation that was passed by the government. Francis Seow was making use of the Law Society as a sort of political platform to attack the government and to make political in-roads with the Singapore public. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister then, did not like it at all. In fact, there was a Parliament Select Committee hearing for which I was subpoenaed along with many council members including Francis Seow, who was then president of the Law Society. Those who were there at the hearing will remember the confrontation between Francis Seow and Lee Kuan Yew. Most of them said that Francis Seow had the upper hand. When the hearing was over, I remember asking him about what I had heard. He told me: “Well, when I was solicitor-general, there were many instances when it was only between me and the PM. So, when I said these things happened, and if they didn’t, there was nothing he could do because it is his word against mine.” I honestly thought that when you lie so glibly like Francis Seow, it must have astonished Lee Kuan Yew that a man can like that well. I think in an interview Lee himself asked how can one handle somebody who tells lies.

It is very difficult to confront a man who is lying when only he and the other person know the truth. I don’t think Lee was in a position to go into details because some of his conversations they had must have been quite serious and he was not prepared to discuss the circumstances. Francis Seow took full advantage of Lee’s difficulty, lied through his teeth and came out victorious. But his victory was short lived because in the end the statute was amended. He was statutorily terminated and had to cease being the president because he had been suspended before and the new amendment will not allow him to hold office in the Law Society.


When we were going through this turmoil in the Law Society, the trouble and confrontation with the government, and changes in the law, I couldn’t help but think of what my good friend Chelvarajah, a person whom I have a lot of respect for, told me a long time ago. He said “Subhas, you do not know Francis Seow. He can be a dangerous person.” How true his words were.

To be continued...

A letter from a reader who lived through the 70s and 80s

Dear Leonard,

First, thank you for your very useful blog. I am not a very big fan of the draconian PAP government but neither am I in awe of Teo Soh Lung and her kakis. Let me give my side of the story because I lived through that period and I even know quite a number of them.

First, Vincent Cheng and his group were detained because they were mixing religion with politics and they were using the Catholic Church as a cover to spread liberation theology and other leftists ideas. Vincent and his supporters were doing this through church publications and in Bible study groups.

In fact, six months or so before the arrest, the church was told by ISD to rein in Vincent and his supporters because they were preaching politics from the pulpit. They stopped for awhile and resumed.

This is dangerous because if the Catholics can do it, so too can the Muslims whose radical members want an Islamic state and Syriah laws. And so too can the Protestants, Buddhists, Hindus and Taoists. The result of this zero sum game would be tensions and conflicts.

And it is my opinion that Tan Wah Piow and Vincent were the main instigators in this plot. Even Teo Soh Lung who is so active now, she was just a peripher member then. Perhaps, that's why she is so upset today to the that point it has consumed her.

Wah Piow's close comrades in the University of Singapore were leftists and communist, like Juliet Chin who joined the Communist Party Malaya radio broadcast station in Southern China and Hong Konger Tsui Hon Kwong who confessed in his article in book, Escape from the Lion's Paw, that he was Maoist. These individuals were also recounted in Malayan Communist Chin Peng's book, My Side of History.

Tsui ran a small library of progressive Chinese books in a big box fixed to the back of his bicycle which he would park near the venues of Chinese Language Society's activities. Back in the university days, 'progressive' meant more or less Red. Juliet Chin was later settled in Europe with the aid of Wah Piow.

Wah Piow was the Malayan communist contact person in UK where he helped to settle political refugees as well as communist students. Vincent visited Wah Piow in the UK and was often in contact with him.

So the bottom line is this, are they what they made out themselves to be. Purely social activists and social workers? No, clearly no. Was it a crime to have aspirations for your society? No, but it was if you were a Red in those days just as they would put you away now if you were a JI member.

The core group of Vincent Cheng, Tay Hong Seng, William Yap, Chia Boon Tai, Kenneth Tsang, Jenny Chin and Theresa Lim are hardcore Marxists. Isn't it interesting how these people aren't that active, at least publicly, in the fight for 'justice'? After all Vincent was kept in detention the longest.

Perhaps for peripheral players like Teo Soh Lung, Wong Souk Yee and Tan Tee Seng, it was quite unfair for them to be held under ISA. They were merely part of the support group and perhaps that is why they are so angry. Perhaps that is why they are so active now in trying to gain public's attention to their case.

However, it doesn't mean one cannot be contribute back to society after being arrested under the ISA. I know one of the detainees, Ng Bee Leng, graduated from NUS in the 90s after her release from ISA. She went on to become a very active social and charity worker and was even appointed by MCYS for her volunteer work. Now, did the other "social activists" who were arrested under the ISA contribute back to society after there were released? 

Thank you for reading my long letter.

Syed.  

TEO SOH LUNG: RELEASE ALL ISA DETAINEES OR CHARGE THEM IN OPEN COURT

Earlier this week, former ISA detainee Teo Soh Lung called ISA detentions grievously wrong as the government can detain them for long periods without charging them in open court. Soh Lung called upon the Government to either release all 18 prisoners immediately or charge them in open court.She felt that it was unfair that detainees are not allowed to explain his case in front of a minister. 

As a matter of fact, the law minister or the judge would not even see someone going to the gallows.

Currently, there are about 20 detainees imprisoned under the ISA all for terrorism. There is another law called the Criminal Law (Temporary Provision) that allows the government to detain hardcore criminals, druglords and gangsters for long periods without open trials. In 2010, there were close to 200 persons incarcerated under CLTP and that figure has not significantly decreased. Indeed, it's a pity that no one is campaigning for their rights.

If we all agree that nobody is guilty unless proven to be so in open court, a basic right that so many hold so dear, why are so many fine with locking people and "throwing away the key" and in agreement that such individuals should be kept away from mainstream society? Just look at average Singaporeans like singaporegirl and uncledicko.

One of the possible reasons behind detention without trial is the compromise of our safe streets and stability of society should there be an absence of such deterrence. Recently, Malaysia repealed their version of CLTP called the Emergency Ordinance much to the delight of many. But others are lamenting that street crimes are getting more violent and vicious and some of these could have been caused by the released detainees.


Why are ISA detainees not charged in open court? MHA provides the following reasons:

• The identity of witnesses may be exposed and they may be put in danger.
• Secret sources of intelligence or undercover investigations may be exposed.
• Relationships with other countries may be affected (in spy cases).
• Racial and religious feelings may be provoked in a prolonged trial.

The reasons behind detentions under the CLTP are similar. In addition, there is likely to be difficulties in gathering sufficient evidence for a conviction as intelligent criminals hide their tracks well and are capable of getting good lawyers. Yet still another reason is that much of the 'evidence' are actually communications interceptions which cannot be produced in open court. Indeed, we have seen many times how some individuals are totally different in public and in private, like Ming Yi, Kong Hee etc.


Is detention at Whitley Rd same as Guantanamo Bay?

We all know about the horrors of Guantanamo where suspected terrorists are treated inhumanely, tortured and humilated. But is secret detention at Guantanamo same as Whitley Rd as the author of Beyond The Blue Gate claims? Reading her book, one could say that it was deplorable but not as intense as Guantanamo.

Currently, detainees who are tortured can raise this matter during routine visits by their family members and lawyers just as they would in a normal prison. In addition, there are medical checkups and unannounced visits by Justices of Peace at the detention centre.

Indeed, Soh Lung is right to say that family members of the detainees are suffering as their loved ones are being locked away. With the internet these days, it's easy for aggreived family members to reach out to the public. Perhaps, the Malay community and relgiious teachers are doing a good job supporting them financially and emotionally during this period. We wait to hear their side of the story.

Most of those detained under the ISA in 2001 and 2002 have been released from detention. We awit their stories and accounts as well. Meanwhile, I will leave you with Soh Lung's recent emotional note in her FB where I am sure the shadows of Whitley Rd still haunt her:

To be imprisoned under our Internal Security Act (ISA) is often to be forgotten. Unlike a prison sentence ordered by a judge in open court, an order for detention signed by the Minister for Home Affairs means indefinite detention. When a judge orders a convicted person to two years’ imprisonment, that person knows that he will be released at the end of the two years. If he behaves well in prison, his sentence will be reduced by one third. A person ordered to be imprisoned under the ISA for two years can be imprisoned for decades. Cabinet ministers seal his fate in secret. No reason or evidence needs to be disclosed. He is never given a chance to appear before any minister to explain his case. At the expiry of his detention order, he can be served with another order. 

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, President Bush addressing a joint session of Congress on 20 September 2001 said: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbour or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sfNROmn7bc) 

Arrests of alleged terrorists commenced soon after and many were thrown into Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba where the US government could ignore the rules governing prisoners of war and ill treat them as it wished. Today, we read of unlawful arrests, torture and deaths in Guantanamo detention camp. In April 2011, WikiLeaks began publishing 779 secret files relating to prisoners detained in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. 168 of these prisoners remain in prison as at July 2012.  

Singapore is a friend of America and paid great attention to the warning of Bush. In December 2001, she too started to arrest alleged terrorists. Fourteen with alleged links to Jemaah Islamiyah, Moro Islamic Liberation Front and other alleged terrorist organisations were arrested under our ISA. In subsequent years, more were arrested. By June 2011, the ISD had arrested and imprisoned at least 80 people under the ISA. 

It is easy to forget the people arrested because we do not know them personally. We do not have human rights organisations which constantly monitor and remind us of their detention. From my record (I stand to be corrected as I do not have the privilege of examining ISD files) 18 people are still in prison. Below are the names and date of arrests. (Again I stand to be corrected). 

1 Haji Ibrahim bin Haji Maidin Dec 2001
2 Mohamad Anuar bin Margono Dec 2001
3 Alahuddeen bin Abdullah Jan 2002
4 Mohd Aslam bin Yar Ali Khan Dec 2002
5 Mohd Jauhari bin Abdullah 16 Aug 2002
6 Nahurudin bin Sabtu 16 Aug 2002
7 Nordin bin Parman 16 Aug 2002
8 Syed Ibrahim 16 Aug 2002
9 Jahpar bin Osman Dec 200310 Mohamed Rashid bin Zainal Abidin Dec 200311 Marksham bin Mohd Shah Dec 200612 Rijal Yadri bin Jumari Feb 200813 Mohd Azmi bin Ali Nov 200914 Mas Selamat bin Kastari 1 Apr 2009 (Arrested in Dec 2003 and reported to have escaped on 27 Feb 2008).
15 Muhammad Fadil bin Abdul Hamid Apr 2010
16 Jumari bin Kamdi Dec 2010
17 Abdul Majid s/o Kunji Mohammad May 2011
18 Samad bin Subari June 2011 

In a month’s time, 8 of the 18 prisoners would have served more than ten years in prison without trial. I am reminded of ISA prisoners arrested in the 1960s and 1970s. Many of them were imprisoned for decades. They were forgotten by Singaporeans. The ministers renewed their detention orders again and again. I doubt their conscience was ever pricked. 

Today, the United Nations, International Red Cross, newspapers like The New York Times and The Guardian have interviewed released prisoners and informed the world of the torture and injustice they have suffered. Human rights lawyers have challenged the US government in court with regard to many of the Guantanamo prisoners. Conditions in the camp have been subjected to international scrutiny. Guantanamo has become an embarrassment and President Obama had promised to close it down. He has not been successful yet. In Singapore, however, our government has not been subjected to any form of scrutiny. Our Law Society of Singapore have not called for the release of the prisoners.  

Like ISA prisoners in past decades, it is easy to forget these 18 prisoners for we do not know them. It is however grievously wrong for our government to detain them for so long without charging them in court. As a concerned citizen, I call upon the Government to either release all 18 prisoners immediately or charge them in open court. For every one of these 18 prisoners, there are many family members suffering with them. They may be sole breadwinners and it is wrong to deprive their families of their support.