Anwar Ibrahim – the trial that should never have been

So finally, the verdict’s out. Anwar Ibrahim has been acquitted. Many believe that this case was politically motivated.

That aside, I believe that this case should have never even made it to the courts. The evidence is so flimsy, the judge ruled that it was not enough to convict Anwar.

Anwar Ibrahim acquitted in sodomy trial

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted and discharged on Monday in a politically-charged sodomy trial he has denounced as a government bid to cripple his opposition ahead of upcoming elections.

Judge Mohamad Zabidin Diah issued the eagerly-awaited ruling at the Kuala Lumpur High Court as thousands of Anwar supporters gathered outside to denounce the trial and demand that he be exonerated.

In his brief verdict announcement, the High Court said he could not rely on controversial DNA evidence submitted by the prosecution.

“The court is always reluctant to convict on sexual offences without corroborative evidence. Therefore, the accused is acquitted and discharged,” he said.

Actually, it should be the court should always be reluctant to convict on ANY offence without corroborative evidence.

The fact that the public prosecutor felt it fit that this case warrants a trial is enough to make you believe that it was politically motivated. So why then the acquittal? I believe due to the availability of the New Media, the public now knows much more than the govt of the land would like them to know. You can fool the public only for so long. Hence, it would be better to simply close the case instead of convicting him, when almost everyone knows Anwar has all along been a political target.

Repealing the ISA -

So what does Anwar’s case in Malaysia got to do with the ISA? Nothing much, but I would like to highlight that the ISA does not allow a public scrutiny of evidence, while an open court case does.

Now if the early Leftists of the 60s and latter Leftists of the 80s had been given a fair and open trial, I am sure the courts would have to throw their cases out. Likewise, if the current JI members were to be put on an open trial, their cases would be thrown out too. Just like the Anwar case where there is not enough evidence.

One of the arguments of pro-ISA supporters is that it is because of the lack of evidence they are arrested under the ISA. Otherwise these people would walk out free.

That argument is as stupid as the ISA itself. Isn’t it because there is no evidence or lack of it, we shouldn’t punish the accused in the first place? What’s this innocent until proven guilty stuff?

My Conclusion -

In order to preserve justice, we need to have a system where the accused is allowed to defend himself. The Anwar trial shows that when there is an open trial, the world watches and hence, any allegation against the defendant is up for scrutiny.

Contrast that with the ISA detainees of the 60s, 70s, 80s and even today, where the arrested do not even have the basic right to defend themselves in a fair, impartial manner.

Replacing ISA with something worse – "war on terror"

I have always been against all kinds of detention without trial. Be it ISA or “war on terror”. Somehow, some anti-ISA lobbyists don’t seem to know that they are stupidly asking for the removal of the ISA to be replaced with an even worse and draconian act – ie “war on terror”.

At the moment, four Singaporeans are on trial in Singapore and are expected to be extradited to the US under America’s “war on terror” campaign. These four claim innocence. Note that the trial is NOT about whether they have committed or aided in terror activities, but whether they have acted in a way that contravened America’s business ethics and deserve to be extradited.

Singaporeans in Iran deal: ‘It was just business’

Three men and a woman, accused by the American government of conspiring to evade a US trade embargo against Iran, denied any wrongdoing in a Singapore district court on Monday.

The Singaporeans are accused of shipping – from Singapore to Iran – 6,000 radio frequency modules they had bought from an American company, Digi International.

In statements read by their lawyers, they said they had believed that it was an ordinary business transaction.

The four, held under the Extradition Act, are Lim Yong Nam, 37, Lim Kow Seng, 42, Benson Hia Soo Gan, 44, and Wong Yuh Lan, 39. They are believed to have tricked Digi into selling them the modules through a network of companies.

BACKGROUND STORY

The Singaporeans are accused of shipping – from Singapore to Iran – 6,000 radio frequency modules they had bought from an American company, Digi International.

In all probability, these four would be extradited and would then be put on trial in the US on terror charges. While technically they will appear to be given a fair trial in the US, we should take note that US has a history of torture in order to extract “confessions” from the accused.

Here is one very common torture method used on terror suspects. Water boarding.

Red Cross secret report accuses the CIA of torture

The testimonies collected by the inspectors of the Red Cross uniformly agree on the use of coercive tactics such as multiple beatings, sleep and food deprivation, extreme temperatures, and in some cases, a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.

Image taken from above link.

Of course, the CIA, master of torture techniques, has a thousand other ways to get you to do what they want. All in the name of “war on terror”.

So those anti-lobbyists who have been calling for removing the ISA and it to be replaced by “war on terror”, are you not asking for something worse?

We should just campaign for the removal of the ISA and all detention without trial. Period. No replacing of a torture practice with another torture practice.

======

Update – Wait a minute, with the new bill passed in the US, maybe those four Singaporeans who would soon be extradited may not even have a fair trial in America!

US lawmakers target Pakistan aid, Iran central bank

With the White House’s blessing, the US House passed legislation Wednesday to freeze some Pakistan aid, slap harsh new sanctions on Iran, and endorse indefinite imprisonment of suspected terrorists.

I don’t buy DPM Teo’s ISA crap

Yesterday I posted an article about DPM Teo’s explanation on why there’s a need to keep the ISA. DPM Teo tells why ISA still needed – do you accept?

In the article above, I discussed that DPM Teo was consistent in his explanation, using the ISA to detain the Marxist conspirators and JI-linked members. However, although I agree that at least his explanation was consistent, I do not agree that the reasons are good enough for the ISA to be in force.

To recap, here’s the core argument from the govt why the ISA is needed.

Main core argument from Govt -

So the main core argument to keep the ISA is:

(1) Pre-emptive action against potential threats including terrorism.

(2) Prevents the possibility of non-prosecution which would have allowed the potential criminal to walk away free, because although the crime was intended, it has not yet been committed.

This is where I have a problem with the explanation. Firstly, you are arresting someone for something that has not been committed. Secondly, a lot depends on judgement. Does someone who simply expresses thought for a terror group to be considered a threat? Thirdly, there really is no way for the accused to defend himself. Not to mention the torture techniques that are used by the ISA to extract “confessions”.

“War on Terror” -

The govt argues terrorism is the reason for the ISA to be in existence. However, I am not convinced with this war on this “war on terror”. Singapore, being a lackey of the US, will of course support America’s odious wars in other lands.

“War on terror” is just a front to justify the invasion of those lands in order to usurp and pillage their resources. The following are my past posts where I have argued that the “war on terror” is actually nothing but “war for oil” and many of these so called “terror attacks” were done under very suspicious circumstances.

1. 911 10th Annivesary: Remembering the Lies (Part 1)
In the article above, I discussed how the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was planned in the 1990s, long before 911. The idea was to replace the Taliban with a more US-friendly govt in order to construct an 800-km oil pipeline.

2. 911 10th Annivesary: Remembering the Lies (Part 2)
I discussed how investors of put options for the counters of United Airlines and American Airlines, the two airline companies whose planes were hijacked, were purchased in extraordinary high volumes just days before 11 Sep 2001, indicating foreknowledge. Other counters that were affected like insurance companies of these two airlines and offices housed at the WTC were also purchased in unusually high volumes days before 911, reinforcing the idea of foreknowledge.

3. 911 10th Annivesary: Remembering the Lies (Part 3)
This has to be a cracker! BBC reports the collapse of WTC7 20 min before its actual collapse! Talking about fortune telling. How did they know what’s to come? Or did their anchorwoman read the pre-written script 20 min too soon? See video below.

The Lies are not just restricted to US -

Since the “war on terror” is a global campaign, allies of US will also drum up the lies. The video below is a recorded live report from ITN just after London was attacked by a series of bombs. This is London’s 7/7. Again note the foreknowledge and incredible coincidence.

Peter Power 7/7 Terror Rehearsal

Here’s a list of some of the top terror attacks the last ten years and the names of those who were involved in those attacks.

Osama bin Laden, CIA Agent, alleged mastermind of 911 Attacks.

Haroon Aswat, MI6 Agent UK Secret Service, alleged mastermind of London’s 7/7 Bombing.

David Headley, employee of the Drug Enforcement Agency (US), allegedly assisted in the Mumbai 2008 Bomb Attacks.

Isn’t it a strange coincidence that these terror plotters and helpers are double agents of US and UK agencies?

Here’s a little more on Headley. Another 2 articles I wrote in the past.

Mumbai Bombing – US refuses to share info‘
This one is about how US refuses to share info about suspect Headley – even with India, the country where the attacked was executed!

David Headley – why is he in a US court and not in India?
This one is about Headley’s trial in America! What? He committed a crime in India and US refuses to extradite him to India, and instead tries him in America? Hellooo? America trying to prevent one of their agents from telling the truth? Like how they try to make a plea deal with the Underwear Bomber to cover up the truth? – Underwear Bomber – Breaking News: Plea deal. What the heck!

Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), SE Asia’s Al-CIAda? -

It doesn’t matter if JI has any links with Al Qaida or not. What matters is that US and other warmongering nations say there is. So Singapore, the lapdog of US, also says it is so.

Here is one issue I find very strange. Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual leader of JI and alleged funder of the Bali Bomb Blast 2002, is currently serving sentence in Indonesia for the alleged crime. However, in Indonesia the penalty for terrorism is DEATH. US and Australia have claimed they have “the evidence” that Bashir was involved. That being the case, why don’t the US and Australia just hand Indonesia the evidence so that the courts can have him executed so that “we have one less terrorist” to worry about?

You know why? That’s because there just ain’t enough evidence against him! Abu Bakar Bashir, the warmongers’ nightmare

“War on Terror”, ISA = Torture -

When the ex-ISA detainees claim that there were tortured into confessing their links with Marxists and Communist ideals, I believe them. Torture is part of ISA. Torture is also part of “war on terror”. See below.

Wouldn’t you “confess” to “crimes” you never committed if you were tortured?

Back to DPM’s spewing words -

First, let’s take a look at Mas Selamat. This is what I think about him and his wayang escape. He does about everything a terrorist wouldn’t do! – Mas Selamat does not fit the profile!

So why would Mas Selamat, a top terrorist, do about everything a top terrorist would not do – ie get family members to be involved? This issue is baffling. It becomes more baffling when Mr Shanmugam tries to avoid a dicey question – was Asmom’s flat (the flat where Mas Selamat sought refuge) under surveillance after his escape from Whitley Detention Centre?…

….If he is a true terrorist, he would not have put his family under severe pressure, such that they would crack. Remember that family members don’t go for terror training. He may be able to take interrogation, but not the untrained family members. Why risk them cracking under pressure?

So exactly why did he do that amateurish stuff, staying overnight at his brother’s place in the first place? Didn’t his supposed terror training teach him not to do that?

Finally, let’s look at the “Marxist Conspirators”. While I can empathise with them, tortured under the ISA, it does look like they, like Mas Selamat, “intended” to harm Singapore although they did not carry out the plan to do so. Here is my argument why I believe that there was intention by the Marxists to link up with the Northern communists, the CPM, which is also a group classified as “terrorists” by the govt, not unlike JI. Ex-ISA Detainees Issue – Teo Soh Lung’s smoking gun

My Conclusion

Today’s ISA is just an extension of the “war on terror” kicked off by the Number One Terror Nation, United States of Terrormerica. Singapore, a lackey of the US, has to keep the ISA to be in line with them. Otherwise, PAPpy will replace it with terror laws which are far more repressive.

Like from this…..

to this…..

DPM Teo tells why ISA still needed – do you accept?

To the groups of people who have been asking the govt to abolish the ISA, here is DPM Teo’s explanation why the ISA is still relevant. Full report from CNA.

ISA still relevant in S’pore: DPM Teo

Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Teo Chee Hean has told Parliament that the Internal Security Act continues to be relevant to the country.

He explained that over the years, the government has used the ISA in good faith and in a measured way, in the prevailing security situations it has had to face, keeping Singapore safe and its people secure.

Mr Teo said the government has used the ISA as a last resort when there is a significant threat, and other laws are not adequate to deal with the situation.

He said: “The difficult decisions that a government has to make to protect its people must be made based on an individual country’s context and circumstances at the time.

“In Singapore, we have a law called the ISA, which empowers the government to act, but it comes with a system of safeguards and provides the detainee certain rights which must be accorded to him.”

Since the Malaysian Prime Minister announced that his country will be abolishing the Internal Security Act, there has been much debate as to the future of the preventive detention law in Singapore.

Mr Teo made it clear that determining what is a security threat to Singapore that requires the use of the ISA requires judgement. That decision must be made by the elected government of the day, at the given time and based on the situation at hand.

He said the ISA allows the government to act quickly to prevent a threat from developing into something very serious such as a bombing, or to stem an organised pattern of subversion which promotes civil disturbances and disorder.

Mr Teo told Parliament that the government needed to use the ISA from the 1960s till the late 1980s to counter the Communist Party of Malaya. In the 1990s, it was rarely used except in a handful of espionage cases.

But it proved critical after September 11 to protect Singapore from global jihadist terrorism.

Mr Teo said with the ISA, the Singapore Government could take prompt pre-emptive action to neutralise and disrupt the Jemaah Islamiyah network.

Otherwise, there could have been several truck bombs targeted at embassies exploding in Singapore in 2002.

Mr Teo also explained why a specific Terrorism Act would not be adequate. He said that such an act would not allow pre-emptive action against those who have not yet committed overt deeds that warrant prosecution but nevertheless belong to a wider terrorist network, unless the act is very broad in scope and provides for preventive detention just like the ISA.

He said: “A Terrorism Act drafted, say in 2002, would probably not have adequately anticipated new forms of the terror threat, like the self-radicalised lone-wolf which has emerged in recent years.

“A case in point is the full-time NS man who was self-radicalised through the Internet. He had expressed intent to conduct jihad abroad and had already made online contact with a suspected Al-Qaeda recruiter and radical ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki. But that would not have been sufficient grounds to charge him in court, as under normal criminal legislation, he had not yet committed an offence.

“The ISA enabled the government to detain him preventively, just before he embarked on demolition training in his course. We now have time to assess, counsel and rehabilitate him. This avoided exposing Singapore to a high, perhaps unacceptable degree of risk. The consequence may not just be loss of innocent lives, but also serious damage to inter-communal relations and trust.”

Mr Teo added: “For the foreseeable future, Singapore will need a law containing provisions like those in the ISA, including preventive detention, to empower the government to preempt and prevent serious threats to our security. The precise form the law takes may evolve with time and circumstances.

“But for the present, the ISA is a shield we need that protects us against these threats, allowing us to deal with them swiftly and effectively before they cause us serious and possibly permanent harm.”

-CNA/ac

Main core argument from Govt -
So the main core argument to keep the ISA is:

(1) Pre-emptive action against potential threats including terrorism.

(2) Prevents the possibility of non-prosecution which would have allowed the potential criminal to walk away free, because although the crime was intended, it has not yet been committed.

All other points are just “side issues”.

Main Issue of the Aggrieved Parties -

Biggie Question for the ex-ISA detainees and their supporters now.

Do you agree with the above core argument by the Govt?

If yes, you agree, then you have no further case, because that’s what you were arrested for in the first place.

If no, you don’t agree, what is exactly your grievance? Is it -

(a) You still believe that ISA should be abolished anyway because you don’t buy what DPM Teo just spewed?

(b) You believe that you have been judged wrongly because you never even did intend (let alone acted out your intention) to set up Communist (links in the past)?

Here’s where I feel the ex-detainees and/or supporters are not sincere in being transparent. They are so secretive of what they have in their minds, nobody knows it is (a) or (b) or any other reason that they are after.

I have argued in this blog that if they are not convinced that the ISA should be in place at all, as in (a) above, why are they so silent about the JI detainees?

On the other hand, if they are claiming they have been wrongly accused of intending to set up Communist links as in (b) above, why the need to ask for ISA to be abolished? Just ask for an apology and/or compensation for the wrong arrests and leave the issue of ISA alone, because the ISA itself isn’t the core issue!

What I see the issue is -

I strongly believe that these parties did have the intention to link up with the Communists. It is just that they did not manage to do it. So the ISA arrest is consistent with what DPM Teo suggested as in the reasons given in (1) and (2) above.

Here are articles I wrote to back up my claim above.

Ex-ISA Detainees Issue – Teo Soh Lung’s smoking gun
In the article above, I argued that Teo Soh Lung (unwittingly) admits that she and earlier Leftist Leaders did intend to link up with the Communist North.

ISA Arrests – who did Tan Jing Quee have in mind to link up with, in the North?
The above article is an extension of the argument that Teo Soh Lung did support Tan Jing Quee, who in turn supported Chin Peng’s Communist party.

So there you have it. There was intention by the Leftists to link up with Chin Peng’s Communist Party of Malaya, which was considered a Terrorist Group then.

This is consistent with DPM Teo’s explanation that the ISA is for:

(1)Pre-emptive action against potential threats including terrorism.

(2)Prevents the possibility of non-prosecution which would have allowed the potential criminal to walk away free, because although the crime was intended, it has not yet been committed.

Now if the ex-ISA detainees and supporters do not agree what I have concluded, please proceed to answer my question which is coloured red above.

====

PS – Personally, I don’t buy the crap off DPM’s spewing words. But my argument is different and has nothing to do with the murky state of affairs the ex-ISA detainees are clouding about. My argument is that any person accused should have a fair chance to defend himself fairly and justly. The ISA deprives him that.

Hence, I support that the ISA be abolished and all wronged detainees (both the Marxist and JI detainees) be allowed to defend their names.

Innocent until proven guilty. They committed no crimes, as what DPM implicitly admitted.

ISA Arrests – who did Tan Jing Quee have in mind to link up with, in the North?

I have been writing quite a few articles on the ISA Arrests issue. As expected, when you don’t follow mainline thought, or if you give an alternative idea, even if that alternative idea is an alternative within the main alternative idea, controversy starts.

The PAP and mainstream media’s rant is that the ex-ISA Detainees were guilty. The alternative media argument is that they are innocent. I have been saying neither.

I have been saying that the detainees are not guilty (of subversion) but they are not totally guiltless either, because they harboured an ideal that’s detrimental to Singapore. It is just that they didn’t manage (for whatever reason) to execute their plan to have their ideals realised.

Here is one of the articles I wrote – Ex-ISA Detainees Issue – Teo Soh Lung’s smoking gun

From the horse’s mouth. Teo Soh Lung’s words below, found in this article – A memorial gathering in honour of Tan Jing Quee

Like people of his (ie Tan Jing Quee) generation, he believed in the Malayan dream, which saw Singapore as part of a socialist Malaya. To them, the politics of race in Malaysia today, as well as the persistent vulnerability of Singapore, and its problematic attempts at nation-building are a result of the betrayal of this dream. The decimation of the left was not achieved through the strength of popular mandate against them, but through using state power to effect detention without trial and other forms of persecution such as banishment orders. The repressive measures were undertaken in the name of battling communism.

What’s that again? The late Tan Jing Quee, an ex-detainee himself, wanted a unified Singapore and Malaya under the Socialist banner? With whom? There was (is) only one Leftist group in Malaya/Malaysia – CPM, led by Chin Peng, the Communist Terrorist!

Teo Soh Lung supports Tan Jing Quee’s ideal, who in turn supported Chin Peng the Communist Terrorist. Isn’t this the smoking gun we have been looking for?

So what’s the difference between Mas Selamat, who according to ISA supports JI, and Teo Soh Lung, who supports Jing Quee, who in turn supported the CPM?

That article received some comments from readers who vehemently objected the fact that I saw Teo Soh Lung’s words as her smoking gun. The smoking gun that Teo Soh Lung envisaged an ideal of linking up with the communists in the North, as what Jing Quee had in mind.

Isn’t that what she (and the rest, including the early leaders) were arrested for under the ISA?

All ex-detainees denied their links with the communists up North. I believe them. They just didn’t execute that plan.

But having said that, exactly who did Tan Jing Quee have in mind, if this group of people who claim they are no communists, to link up with in the North, in order to establish a unified Singapore/Malaysia Left Wing Socialist rule?

If not Chin Peng, the Communist Terrorist Leader of CPM, who then? -

So once again, who did Tan Jing Quee have in mind to link up with in the North? If not Chin Peng, who else? There wasn’t anyone else, or any other Left Wing Socialist party up North (at that time) to link up with!

Are my critics saying that Tan Jing Quee, one of the most respected early leaders of the Left followers in Singapore, did not have anybody in mind when he wanted to link up with the North?

Do you really believe that is the character of Tan Jing Quee? What kind of leader is that, who misses out major and crucial details of the Master Plan?

However, if there are any critics out there who do believe that Jing Quee had someone else in mind other than CPM or Chin Peng, please name that person and/or party and bring forth your evidence to back it up.

Otherwise, you just have to accept that it was none other than Chin Peng, the Communist Terrorist. And isn’t that the evidence that although the ex-detainees did not have communist links (because they didn’t manage to link up), they had plans to form a formal link with the Communists in the North?

Making my points clear -

1. I am not saying that the ISA arrests is correct. I strongly oppose to any detention without trial. The ex-detainees should have been given a fair trial.

2. I am not saying the ex-detainees had communist links. They never had. At most, as seen from the evidence above, they just planned to. It is just that they didn’t execute that plan.

3. Wasn’t it the plan (as in #2 above) that got them into trouble with the ISA in the first place?

4. So while they are correct and told the public the truth that they are have no communist links, why are they less than honest, hiding from us that they had that plan?

Concluding Words -

Again, I have to repeat that I do not support the arrests of the ex-detainees. As a matter of fact, I do not support any ISA arrests.

I am also not saying that the ex-detainees deserve what they got. I am saying that they are hiding material facts from the public – like their intention to link up with the CPM.

Those who oppose that I say they had intention to link up with CPM, please provide the name of the party Tan Jing Quee had in mind in order to establish the unified Singapore/Malaysia Leftist rule.

Finally, I feel that I cannot stress this point enough – If it was not Chin Peng, the Communist Terrorist, Jing Quee had in mind to link up with, who was it?

==========

Related Links:

Ex-ISA Detainees Issue – Teo Soh Lung’s smoking gun

Exactly what is the (hidden) agenda of these ex-ISA detainees?

Anti-ISA campaigners are as one dimensional as pro-ISA supporters

Malaysia abolishes ISA? It’s too early too celebrate

Are the Socialist Left truly for S’pore or do they have a sinister agenda?

Is Tan Jee Say being used by the Left?

Tan Kin Lian is naive to the point of being ignorant (about the Socialist Left’s violent past)

Why ask PE candidates about ISA’s detention of Marxist conspirators of 80s, when we have JI detainees today?

PAP gloats its “glory” days, Socialist Left gloats its “gory” days

Ex-ISA Detainees Issue – Teo Soh Lung’s smoking gun

It can be argued that the ex-ISA detainees may be afraid that if they publicly deny the charges against them, they would be rounded up by the ISD again. Valid fear.

However, Teo Soh Lung, one of the ex-detainees did make a self-incriminating statement that shows at least she (if not the rest) did harbour ideals that were detrimental to the security of Singapore then. I will come to that later.

The Charges -

In the meantime, here are the charges against the ex-detainees.

MHA: ‘Marxist Conspirators’ had plotted to subvert and destabilise Singapore

2 These sixteen ex-detainees were not detained for their political beliefs, but because they had involved themselves in subversive activities which posed a threat to national security. Nine were actively involved in Communist United Front (CUF) activities in support of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), which was committed to the violent overthrow of the constitutionally-elected governments in Singapore and Malaysia. They infiltrated legally-established organisations like trade unions and student associations, and instigated illegal strikes and demonstrations to cause mayhem and civil strife, to complement the CPM’s armed revolution. In 1974, one of them provided medical assistance to a CPM saboteur who was hiding in Malaysia. The saboteur had been conveying a bomb for an attack in Singapore, and was travelling along Still Road (Katong) when it detonated prematurely, injuring him and killing his two accomplices. Such was the volatile and dangerous security situation then prevailing in Singapore. Following the CPM’s call in 1968 to its underground networks to return to armed struggle, new CPM organisations were formed in the 1970s which included killer squads to carry out sabotage, assassinations and other acts of violence.

3 In the 1980s, seven of the sixteen ex-detainees were involved in a Marxist plot to subvert and destabilise Singapore. The plot was part of the CPM’s renewed efforts to rebuild the united front by penetrating and manipulating legally-established organisations. Three of them infiltrated and manipulated several religious organisations and, exploiting the religious cover, pursued activities towards subversive ends. They worked with others, including leftist elements from the CPM era, to build a covert network to promote a Marxist agenda, using united front tactics to control and influence organisations engaged in religious and social activism. Five of these ex-detainees swore Statutory Declarations concerning their past activities.

Violence of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) -

To give you an idea how violent the CPM was, here is what I wrote in July this year – Singapore’s history of turbulence nothing compared to Malaysia’s – The Malayan Emergency

Chin Peng led the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) during WW2. MPAJA was mainly a Chinese based group. Chin Peng and his men fought side by side with the Brits. He was given a medal for that.

During WW2, the Brits armed MPAJA heavily so as to defeat the Japs. It turned out to be a big mistake. After the war, the MPAJA did not return those arms. Instead, they used it to turn against the Brit govt. This was the start of the Malayan Emergency, which lasted 12 years which killed more than 11,000 people, innocent civilian lives included.

I linked a documentary from History Channel which comes in 9 parts (in the article above) to back up my claims. Below is part 1.

View all 9 parts, which can be found in the article I linked, if you have the time. That would give you an idea how violent the Malayan Communist Party (CPM), led by Chin Peng, was.

You could say the govts of Singapore and Malaysia saw that CPM was a terror group then, the way they see JI today. You could also add that Chin Peng was seen as the terrorist leader, the way the govts of Singapore and Malaysia see Abu Bakar Bashir today.

Just like Mas Selamat and gang are now detained for their alleged links to JI, the ex-detainees were detained for their alleged links to CPM.

So is there any truth at all that the ex-detainees were detained under ISA for Communist links?

The Smoking Gun -

From the horse’s mouth. Teo Soh Lung’s words below, found in this article – A memorial gathering in honour of Tan Jing Quee

Like people of his (ie Tan Jing Quee) generation, he believed in the Malayan dream, which saw Singapore as part of a socialist Malaya. To them, the politics of race in Malaysia today, as well as the persistent vulnerability of Singapore, and its problematic attempts at nation-building are a result of the betrayal of this dream. The decimation of the left was not achieved through the strength of popular mandate against them, but through using state power to effect detention without trial and other forms of persecution such as banishment orders. The repressive measures were undertaken in the name of battling communism.

What’s that again? The late Tan Jing Quee, an ex-detainee himself, wanted a unified Singapore and Malaya under the Socialist banner? With whom? There was (is) only one Leftist group in Malaya/Malaysia – CPM, led by Chin Peng, the Communist Terrorist!

Teo Soh Lung supports Tan Jing Quee’s ideal, who in turn supported Chin Peng the Communist Terrorist. Isn’t this the smoking gun we have been looking for?

So what’s the difference between Mas Selamat, who according to ISA supports JI, and Teo Soh Lung, who supports Jing Quee, who in turn supported the CPM?

I’ll tell you the difference. Mas Selamat never admitted openly he supports JI. Teo Soh Lung on the other hand openly supports Jing Quee, who supported Chin Peng’s CPM.

Now, the issue is, do the other ex-detainees think on the same wavelength as Teo Soh Lung on Jing Quee’s ideal? Their total silence on the matter surely speaks louder than their cry about Human Rights, doesn’t it?

One last argument -

Some critics may argue that the Communist threat is over, but the Al Qaida threat is not. Therefore, it would not be fair to compare the ex-detainees to the JI detainees.

I say that argument is like shooting yourself in the foot. It actually supports what the govt is doing right now – ie the ex-detainees are free today, but the JI detainees are not.

Doesn’t that show that the govt acknowledges that today, the Communist threat is over, but the Al Qaida threat is not?

So what are the ex-ISA detainees complaining now?

(If you say the ex-detainees are saying they have been treated wrongly, I have covered that comprehensively here – Exactly what is the (hidden) agenda of these ex-ISA detainees?)

Concluding Words -

I am baffled, even shocked, at the brazen display of Soh Lung’s misguided confidence, when she openly shows support for Jing Quee, who supported Chin Peng. Note she didn’t even flinch an iota with her self-incriminating statement. Imagine if Mas Selamat showed open support for Abu Bakar Bashir, or even Osama – and he walks around freely.

The charge against the ex-detainees is their covert links with the CPM, a terror group. From Teo Soh Lung herself, in her own words, she supports Jing Quee, who supported the CPM.

Isn’t that the smoking gun that shows the ISA was correct about her ideals, which includes trying to establish links with the CPM?

As for the other ex-detainees, their silence and their non-objection to Soh Lung’s open admission is very, very telling.

I may not support the ISA itself, because I don’t approve detention without trial. But I think the staff in ISA Dept did a good job and they were alert enough to identify these people who could have well been a threat then.